Not searching for the link, but there was the time **adaher **insisted that Obama was unqualified to be President because he doesn’t know every single detail about everything everyone in the Executive Branch is doing.
Dance, clown, dance!
And even when they are, if you don’t like, you declare it “wrong”. As for who is paying attention, these threads have 20x more readers than posters, and I’m sure at least some of them see through your absurd debate tactics.
I doubt i said that. That would be stupid. What I probably said is that he’s RESPONSIBLE for what is done in the executive branch, in the same way a CEO is responsible for what is doing in his company or a general is responsible for what happens in his army.
The executive branch is broken, apparently, because there is no accountability anywhere, and certainly none at the top. It’s a source of neverending amusement to me that Doper liberals consistently hold business executives and even fellow posters to a higher standard than elected officials. It’s an admission that government is incompetent and dishonest.
I don’t have the time or expertise to watch CNN 24/7 and micromanage the Fed government. :smack: What little I know about the misbegotten Iraq adventure was learned leisurely reading books.
But my general reaction is huge appreciation and admiration for Obama and the Clintons for holding up under malicious GOP witch-hunts that almost border on treason.
I realize that Benghazi-gate, VA-gate, and the semen-stained dress-Gate were tragedies that dwarfed the Iraq Stupidity, with its cost of mere trillions of dollars and only several hundred-thousands of lives. But can you imagine the GOP outrage that would have ensued had the Democrats paid as much attention to that mistake as Republicans pay to Benghazi?
Well, I guess I am assuming that Obama and Clinton hold that there is no higher priority than saving attempting to save the lives of those serving under them when they are asked for help because they fear for their safety. I can see how that might be a hasty assumption.
But even if there priorities allow them to treat the lives of an Ambassador and those serving with him cheaply, you’d think they’d have gotten him pout of there. Lie the Brits did. I mean those lives have some value, don’t they. I mean beyond the PR nightmare they’re causing Obama and Clinton.
This does not address the point I made. It also implies that you think there was no good reason that he was in Benghazi. The fair assumption is that he had good reason to be in Benghazi. Just as the fair assumption is that he had good reason to be in Libya. You make it sound like he left his post to to go party on Spring Break.
But your logic is unassailable on one point: I he had stayed home in the U.S., no problem!
You may think the oversight is aggressive and unfair, but treason? You’re nuts.
You’re forgetting something. The GOP paid for those mistakes, dearly. You seem to imply that Democrats should not be held accountable for their performance. Either that, or you think their performance has been just peachy.
What the rest of the country sees is a government that is broken, and the VA scandal is further evidence of that. The party of government has failed to improve the government. They’ve made it worse, actually, and by claiming that the bureaucracy is unmanageable and thus not any elected official’s fault, they provide an ironclad argument for curtailing the bureaucracy. A democracy cannot survive with an unaccountable bureaucracy that no one can control and which no elected official can be held accountable for.
You have no business speaking for ‘the rest of the country’. Speak for yourself. Get that part right first before you think you have the standing to speak for the rest of the country. Your opinions are just that, your opinions. The rest of the country can speak for themselves. You are not their spokesperson. Far from it.
“Unsurprisingly, adaher, you’re wrong.”
– The Rest of the Country
Oversight? I refer to threats to force the U.S. Treasury into default, and sabotaging the economy because “the highest priority is to make Obama fail.”
Someone’s nuts but it’s not Obama and his supporters.
Seriously? Was there ever a scandal where the president didn’t claim ignornnce of what their own government was doing? Let’s start withTeapot Dome:
Or how about the GSA scandal?
Did Bush say he was aware or unaware of what she was doing? I can’t recall.
Here’s a list of scandals, I would venture a bet that in 99% of the cases listed, the official response contained some form of “the President didn’t know about that.”
Well, if you want to know why Democrats are going to lose and why the President’s approval rating is in the shitter, you could do a lot worse than to listen to my ideas.
It’s better than “It’s all Republicans fault!” If the rest of the country saw that, Democrats wouldn’t be in trouble right now.
How’d that work out for ya last time, chum? 
There wasn’t much point in even asking him, was there?
You would be only half right. First, Presidents often don’t even feel the need to say it. It’s either already assumed, if it was deep in the bowels of the bureaucracy, or one of their close advisors misled them. If the culprit is known, then there’s no need to ask the President what he knew: it’s already known. The reason the President has to claim ignorance is because the public doesn’t know who did what, and the President hasn’t really been trying too hard to find out.
Second, sometimes President don’t protest that they didn’t know anything because it just doesn’t fucking matter. GWB didn’t run FEMA directly, but there was never a question in anyone’s mind that FEMA’s failures were his failures. If he’d protested that he was unaware that FEMA wasn’t ready for Katrina he would have been laughed at even more than he was. Obama is judged by a different standard, at least by SDMB, if not the media, which has been remarkably consistent about holding Obama to the same standard they held Bush. Claiming ignorance deserves derision, and that’s what Obama has gotten.
How’s it working out this time? Can you say, lame duck? Even before the 2014 elections, he’s got no political capital.
Obama isn’t running this year, tool.
ONly a tool believes that an election is the end of the story. The President can’t get anything done with a 44% approval rating. And he’s about to flirt with the 30s again if the relentless negative media keeps up. He went to the well with his lame excuses once too often.
The subject you were discussing was the 2014 elections, tool. And why we should listen to your “ideas”. 
Homework assignment: Look up your own party’s approval ratings and report back to us. You’ll still be a tool, but perhaps a slightly better informed one.
I’m well aware of the GOP’s unpopularity. So how come the Democrats are in trouble? Becuase they are the ruling party and because the party of government has demonstrated the incompetence and corruption of the government.
How would you expect the public to react to that?
That, after all your posts crowing that the Republicans are really in control?
Tool.