He did not have a teleprompter in Tucson, and his speech was universally praised as one of, if not the best, he’s ever given.
Talking point fail.
:rolleyes: Gingrich is a ghost who hasn’t walked into the light. Jimmy Carter is more relevant to this decade.
As for an Obama-Gingrich debate . . . That would be like Rocky Balboa, if Rocky Balboa had shown what kind of a blood-dripping takedown really happens when an ex-champ in his 60s takes on a current champ in his 20s . . . and if the current champ were really champ, while Rocky had, in fact, never actually been a boxer at all but just played one on TV.
Obama is not Rocky in this scenario, in case you were wondering.
You gotta be kidding. People’s Park, People’s Democratic Republic, so on and so forth? Rightarded heads would assplode so much, from space it would sound like popcorn.
:rolleyes: You think that is a criticism of a POTUS? It ain’t.
I’m not sure how the hell the teleprompter thing got to be an issue. Are we pretending presidents used to speak extemporaneously while give major national addresses, or that must people don’t ‘ah’ and ‘um’ when they are thinking about what to say?
[hijack]
If I’m ever a politician, I want people to say of my speeches: “It was horrible! It was like being strapped to a table and having vinegar poured in my eyes! . . . When is he speaking again?!”
[/hijack]
They may have been right but unfortunately we’ll never know. An uncompromised President with a spine seems to be becoming a pipe dream.
It is a criticism if the goal of a President is to do whats best for his country. If the goal is to look out for one’s own best interests then I guess he didn’t do that very well either as they lost the House and a number of Senate seats. We’ll see what happens in 2012.
So you’d prefer someone who never compromises but doesn’t get anything done? I think we can agree that’s not Obama’s style. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the spine thing. It would have been easier to not tackle the issue in the first place, so I’m not sure how he’s spineless.
I’m not sure what these issues have to do with each other. He brought up the topic of his mother to illustrate the issue of health insurance companies canceling the policies of sick people. The health care law was intended to address that issue and I would say it did (we’ll see how it works out in practice).
A bill with a public option would not have passed. It’s unfortunate but it was clearly true.
Neither of us knows if he could have achieved more. That is where a good part of my frustration with him lies. If he had been unable to achieve more then he could opt for compromise. That he gave so much ground to begin with and consistently tried to reign in the left wing of his party indicates to me an insincerity with his rhetoric. I am amazed by a democratic party that is now contemplating changing Senate rules when they could have attempted it two years ago when they controlled both houses. Is this just another example of ‘compromise’?
:rolleyes: If you’re POTUS and if you believe in yourself and your party, then re-election for both is what’s best for your country, as far as you need be concerned. A man who doesn’t think that way has no business in the job.
Do you think that if he’d taken on the pharmaceutical and health care industries and the Republicans in Congress and failed, he could have started over again the next year?
This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.
The two are examples of how health care in this country is not working for the betterment of the citizens. In the one case people with insurance were losing it once they became seriously ill and in the case of pharma there are plenty of people who have to decide between rent and food and medication. Both of these issues could have been dealt with in the health care plan. How it works out in practice is much more easily controlled by large health industries without a legitimate public option.
You’re a lot less likely to have to choose between food and medication if you have health insurance. We don’t have other realities to compare it to, but I don’t see how Obama could have worked lower drug prices and a public option into the bill. Republicans were against the bill regardless and conservative Democrats (particularly in the Senate) indicated they would not support a bill with a public option. Maybe if he had made his case for the law more directly it would not have gotten to that point, but I don’t know.
It was dragged out far longer than it should have been. If there had been decisive action by Obama and the democrats, such as by attempting to change Senate rules and not playing the rights games of delay and destroy then he may have had ample opportunity and time left. The rights tactics of shouting down town hall meetings and spreading lies, such as death panels, was very predictable.
I would also be surprised if the Obama administration has no say in the attempt to change Senate rules.
No, of course not. Why would it? Separation of powers, y’know. The Senate writes its own rules.
An attempt to change the Senate rules at that time would have gone over like a lead balloon - and I don’t think it’s going to happen even now. It gets discussed every few years and then doesn’t happen. It’s true the bill might have come out differently if they didn’t need to worry about the filibuster. The problem was not only ‘delay and destroy,’ whatever that is. It’s that the conservative Democrats were reluctant to support the bill.
They have absolutely no say.
Exactly, he could have made a more impassioned plea to the Ameican people rather than letting it get bogged down in political gamesmanship. He is a very eloquent speaker when he chooses to be. That he would allow one of his greatest strengths to sit on the sidelines while the right dragged out the process and spread total fabrications I think is an indication that he wasn’t truly commited to a solid health care system.
And technically, the President doesn’t have power over the rules of the Senate but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t communication going on between them. I am sure that what the administration wants plays a role in decision making in the Senate.
I agree completely. But the piont is not whether “folks” is ever appropriate, it’s that he uses it an awful lot. Even in many instances such as, “…what ‘people’ want…”