Or so you would think, if you’re listening to talking heads talking about Democratic leaders. Barney Frank’s humorous comment yesterday seems to have spawned cries of revolution amongst the famously spineless Congress critters. Said he:
At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, [Obama] says we only have one president at a time. I’m afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He’s got to remedy that situation.The huffy huffers at Huffington Post are beginning to squeal as well.
Democrats are growing impatient with President-elect Barack Obama’s refusal to inject himself in the major economic crises confronting the country. Obama has sidestepped some policy questions by saying there is only one president at a time. But the dodge is wearing thin.The dodge? The fucking dodge? God all mighty, will somebody please slap some sense into these do-dos.
Obama isn’t saying there’s only one president in order to keep from doing anything. HE’S SAYING IT BECAUSE IT’S THE FUCKING TRUTH. It’s in the goddamn Constitution. He has no more fucking presidential power than I have. I just want to hold paint stirrers in each hand while I slap these bozos’ ears. Do you fucking HEAR ME!?
He doesn’t even have the new Congress yet. They haven’t been sworn in either. Conveniently, you’re not calling on them to get to work before they’ve taken the oath. That’s because you don’t want to lead. Or maybe you do, and just don’t know how. But whatever the case, just shut the fuck up.
Jesus. The man has made the most competent appointments in the history of the Republic. He has a crack team of economists working on a massive stimulus package. He has held four news conferences in two weeks. Remember last week? When you were fucking saying that he was too fucking visible and was stretching out his announcements just to get face time and photo ops?
You dumb fucking horses’ asses. I have to wonder sometimes why Obama chose the Democratic Party, a bunch of cry ninnies in a permanent state of pout. Stop sucking your fucking thumbs, and start acting like grown-ups for a few fucking weeks. Can you hold it in your pants for six fucking weeks? Stop embarrassing all the new people who came into the tent this November. They won’t know what to think of your bizarre weirdness. God. Get a fucking clue.
It does sound like a Pit thread, Lib – one of the substantive ones where people actually debate the content of the OP and related facts and opinions.
It’s curious that attitudes are duplicating those of November 1932-February 1933, when FDR was due to be inaugurated on March 4, people were tired and disgusted about Hoover’s performance – or lack of it, and calling on FDR to take resolute action – before Inauguration. FDR resolutely refused to even comment on Hoover’s actions before inauguration day – and Obama is seemingly taking a leaf from his book.
January 20 will be along soon enough. I have a feeling that President Obama’s Inaugural Address will be something for the ages (everyone remembers his saying, "We have no Doper to fear but Fear Itself, right? ;)). And it will only be the beginning.
I don’t think he’ll solve all our problems. But I do think he’ll make a major dent in them. Patience is a virtue. There’s time enough…
I think the thing driving these comments in the media are threefold:
Obama having developed so damn much political capital with one of the best campaigns ever witnessed. That created the early belief in his ability to solve problems.
The post-media-circus letdown following one of the most highly interested elections ever. People EXPECT Obama to continue to be as in-the-media as he was beforehand. That sort of Cult of Personality that has developed about him is leading people to demand his high profile before it’s really due.
Lastly, Bush has effectively conceded the spotlight and appears to just be playing out the string. With his apparent abdication from his duties and responsibilities it is natural for those wanting action, any action, to look to the President-elect.
Looking it over, I suppose I was a mite colorful with my syntax. Nevertheless, whether here or in another forum, I’d like to hear from someone who supports the ridiculous position I assailed. I’d like them to explain why they’re thinking what they’re thinking.
I suppose he could do some behind the scenes strongarm persuasion on President Bush… “Look motherfucker, if you want to do one good thing in your entire miserable Presidency, you will sign whatever the Democratic Congress gives you. It would be a real shame if the next President sent you to The Hague for War Crimes… oh? So you want to cooperate then? Good.”
I would remind Congress that, according to a new Newsweek poll, 72% of Americans approve of how Obama is handling his transition while only 13% disapprove, and that the numbers for Congress are just about the reverse.
He fought the Great Depression for nine years, making little discernable headway until the attack on Pearl Harbor facilitated gearing up a wartime economy. The Dow didn’t return to pre-1929 levels until well into the 1950s.
Lib, you and I have been on opposite sides on many threads (primarily, those pertaining to religion), but I fuckin’ LOVE having you on my side in politics.
Coming soon to a White House near you - the most precipitous popularity crash in US history.
Sweet Jesus have mercy. I didn’t even vote for him, and I feel sorry for him already. He isn’t even President yet, and they are complaining he hasn’t fixed the country’s problems yet? Amd this is from his friends.
“See that cliff over there? Let’s jump off, and see if we can fly.”
That would be nice. Except that Obama is a member of at least one of them.
Considering that 57% of the people that voted for Obama don’t know that the Democrats controlled Congress for the last two years, I guess Obama’s hope is that they won’t figure it out over the next two years either.