Bah, that’s ridiculous. I absolutely agree that he should have had more backbone and made Republicans his bitch when he had the chance though. I think that’s kind of a chronic problem with the left. People who are more assertive in life tend to get their way, even if they’re giant assholes. It’s a rare breed to find someone who is not only extremely assertive but also fights on the side of good and justice.
I’ve seen little of Donald Trump other that one interview where he had a no nonsense, take no prisoners approach to the China trade issues, but that attitude made me take him seriously. If he does run for the big house, 2012 might be an interesting challenge for Obama.
Well then, by all means cut and paste from Wikipedia how long Obama spent in the military, and how long he was in the Senate when he announced his candidacy, and so on.
Regards,
Shodan
He’s held several jobs for longer then four years. 7 years as a State Senator and 12 years as a law professor.
There is this concept amongst young feminists called “name it to change it” in which they call out sexism, name it for what it is, and by thus shining a light on it, hopefully create change.
I’d really like for Obama to start naming and changing. We have a Republican House full of members who are utter morons (and yes, when the vast majority of the new freshman class denies climate change there is no other word for them but morons) and Republican leadership in the House and the Senate whose only stated goal is to ensure the failure of the Obama presidency, at any and all cost to the nation.
You cannot compromise with utter recalcitrance.
You cannot negotiate with people whose stated purpose is obstructing you to the point that you are perpetually hamstrung and rendered impotent.
You cannot create a spirit of cooperation with people who are willing to go to any length and screw over the same people who elected them, just to play political smacking games.
That attitude, that dangerous proclamation of “we will make him a one-term president” not because of its political intent but because of what it will take to make it happen needs to be called out. Named for what it is: destructive, offensive, juvenile and contrary to the goal of service which should be the underlying purpose of every elected official in Washington.
These Republicans aren’t in DC to do their jobs, they are there to try to destroy this President.
And being honest about this and saying that it will not stand is the only thing that’s going to make a difference. Trying to be conciliatory is only going to get him a knife in the back and the disrespect of the people who elected him in the first place. (Though we will vote for him again because anybody the Republicans have to offer would be entirely worse.)
What else can he do aside from negotiate? Growing a pair of balls means nothing if you don’t have the votes.
As for the Republicans, their job is to prevent legislation that’s against their (constituents’) interests. There are very few progressive Republicans, nach.
We’ve been shouting this for at least a year; it is amazing that Obama seems to be deaf to it.
Sadly, Obama’s a Democrat, and like many Democrats shows no evidence of having a backbone. And I shake my head to your parenthetical statement because it’s true. In 2008 I voted for Obama. In 2012 I will be voting against the Republicans.
QFT.
See Senator Dodd’s excellent parting speech in the Senate. Democrats and Republicans both should read, learn and inwardly digest.
Part of his platform was to try to end partisan bickering. It’s been his mantra all along, and he continues to try to act on that principle. These efforts have, other than for a brief moment in the beginning, been met with brick wall resistance, so he can be forgiven for loading up the cannon on occasion. He gets props for pursuing the platform agenda he announced of ending the Iraq war, UHC, DADT, etc. He gets demerits for appointing the likes of Bernanke (who continues the policies of Greenspan and will likely result in another burst economic bubble). For a great communicator, he seems to have a noticeable lack of charisma when off the campaign trail. Far better than a McCain/Palin fiasco, however, and pretty damn good for only two years of work with a bitterly divided legislature.
The problem seems to be the notion of many liberals that things should have been fixed already. Rather than supporting Obama’s efforts, we hear nothing but doom and gloom from the people who voted for him. What did you all think was going to happen? Immediate economic relief? Peace and understanding across the aisle? Please.
Both the Senate and the House are in a chokehold created by Wall Street geniuses who have manipulated the system through tools like Greenspan to the point where the government doesn’t dare do anything to rock the financial boat. All the posturing about taking back government is just bullshit: we haven’t had control of the government for at least 20 years, and will never have it as long as the “free market” idiots continue setting the rabid dogs loose.
Both part-time.
Regards,
Shodan
At one time he had the votes, and he still grovelled at the Republican’s feet.
Oh please. New START is something Republicans would normally be for, and should have been cake to pass, but because it would be perceived as a victory for Obama, Republicans have, once again, put up the road blocks. Republicans are not opposed to legislation that is against their constituents’ best interests. They’re opposed to any legislation that benefits Democrats or Obama in any way, even if it ultimately hurts their constituents.
President Obama is well aware that he cannot fire back with too much vigor (say, a la Sen. Franken), or the right wingers will unleash their “angry black man” meme (using dog whistle words, of course).
So, yeah, it sucks that he doesn’t return fire.
Nothing really suspicious about it. They were terrified of Reagan because he had balls and Carter didn’t. Reagan would have flattened Tehran if the hostages hadn’t been released, and they knew it.
Reagan wouldn’t have done shit.
The release was negotiated under Carter, but Bush Sr. managed to arrange it for the hostages to be kept for a few extra days so they could be turned over to Reagan instead of Carter.
It’s like the tired old meme that Reagan somehow caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The same Reagan who illegally sold Iran weapons in order to try and get hostages released? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
Yeah, he sure taught the Iranians not to take hostages. :rolleyes: