President Obama: "Republican intransigence entrenchment has stymied my efforts to enact policies to improve the economy"

/Fixed that for West Wing purposes.

RexTalionis: President Obama: "Republican entrenchment has stymied my efforts to enact policies to improve the economy destroy America"

/Fixed that for the Real Americans.

Lets just be honest Barack:

"Republicans are trying to destroy the American economy for political gain."

make me some tea: RexTalionis: President Obama: "Republican entrenchment has stymied my efforts to enact policies to improve the economy destroy America"

/Fixed that for the Real Americans.

I thought he was going to impose Sharia law and make the real marekins worship the muslin moon god.

vpb: make me some tea: RexTalionis: President Obama: "Republican entrenchment has stymied my efforts to enact policies to improve the economy destroy America"

/Fixed that for the Real Americans.

I thought he was going to impose Sharia law and make the real marekins worship the muslin moon god.

I know! Can't Obama do anything right?

I guess he needs to use this line, but it leads to the inescapable conclusion that he is a weak leader; or maybe being more charitable, too hands off a leader.

LBJ would never have allowed congress to get away with the shiat Obama let them pull. When you are president and have an intransigent legislature to deal with, you don't take them farking golfing. You get on the phone and you bully them and threaten their children.

gilgigamesh: LBJ would never have allowed congress to get away with the shiat Obama let them pull. When you are president and have an intransigent legislature to deal with, you don't take them farking golfing. You get on the phone and you bully them and threaten their children.

There's a big difference, though. In the 88th-90th Congress, Democrats had massive majorities in both houses, and the President, as leader of his party, had a lot of leverage.

gilgigamesh: I guess he needs to use this line, but it leads to the inescapable conclusion that he is a weak leader; or maybe being more charitable, too hands off a leader.

LBJ would never have allowed congress to get away with the shiat Obama let them pull. When you are president and have an intransigent legislature to deal with, you don't take them farking golfing. You get on the phone and you bully them and threaten their children.

That works like a charm when you don't have a 24/7 media presence that can blast even the tiniest stories across the world in 160 characters or less.

I see the Party of No has already shown up.

RexTalionis: There's a big difference, though. In the 88th-90th Congress, Democrats had massive majorities in both houses, and the President, as leader of his party, had a lot of leverage.

Well, so did Obama until November, 2010, and specifically when he was trying to pass the stimulus. If you recall, he started negotiating with the republicans by encouraging their "good ideas" and meeting them halfway, and they responded to his olive branch by taking a steaming dump on it.

Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but the fact remains he could have rolled right over the republicans if he had been able to whip his own party into line.

2wolves: I see the Party of No has already shown up.

I see some people are so blinded by party, they think criticism automatically makes the source "the enemy".

gilgigamesh: RexTalionis: There's a big difference, though. In the 88th-90th Congress, Democrats had massive majorities in both houses, and the President, as leader of his party, had a lot of leverage.

Well, so did Obama until November, 2010, and specifically when he was trying to pass the stimulus. If you recall, he started negotiating with the republicans by encouraging their "good ideas" and meeting them halfway, and they responded to his olive branch by taking a steaming dump on it.

Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but the fact remains he could have rolled right over the republicans if he had been able to whip his own party into line.

He had majorities, but he didn't have the kind of safe majorities that LBJ had. In every Congress, the House had majorities - sometimes 65-35 majorities for Democrats, while Senate was running in filibuster-proof majorities that ran just as high. (The 89th Congress had 67 Democrats in the Senate.) The 111th Congress had 56 Democrats in the Senate with two Independents that caucused (sometimes, as in the case of my own Senator, Joe Lieberman) with the Democrats.

"The big bad Wepublicans won't let me have my way."

gilgigamesh: I guess he needs to use this line

The quotes in the headline are misleading. He said something along the same theme, but not those words.

RexTalionis: He had majorities, but he didn't have the kind of safe majorities that LBJ had. In every Congress, the House had majorities - sometimes 65-35 majorities for Democrats, while Senate was running in filibuster-proof majorities that ran just as high. (The 89th Congress had 67 Democrats in the Senate.) The 111th Congress had 56 Democrats in the Senate with two Independents that caucused (sometimes, as in the case of my own Senator, Joe Lieberman) with the Democrats.

Well, it is also true that the GOP is now (ab-)using the filibuster to effectively derail virtually every piece of legislation. So it was probably not a great analogy as to congress.

But my larger point stands: Obama failed to get in front of his own initiatives until the republicans successfully diluted them, and he gave in too much to win over republicans who weren't going to support anything with his name on it.

I just don't think blaming republicans for the state of the nation, even justifiably, is a very effective campaign strategy.

gilgigamesh: But my larger point stands: Obama failed to get in front of his own initiatives until the republicans successfully diluted them, and he gave in too much to win over republicans who weren't going to support anything with his name on it.

As you said, this is really hindsight talking. Towards the beginning, people actually thought that there would be compromises and bipartisanship, so he offered them deals. Of course, that died real quick around the time the healthcare debates started.

gilgigamesh: 2wolves: I see the Party of No has already shown up.

I see some people are so blinded by party, they think criticism automatically makes the source "the enemy".

100% blind opposition is not criticism. Glad to help you out on that.

gilgigamesh: I just don't think blaming republicans for the state of the nation, even justifiably, is a very effective campaign strategy.

If "telling the truth" isn't a good campaign strategy, our country straight-up blows.

Obama is perfect. It's always someone else's fault.

GaryPDX: Obama is perfect. It's always someone else's fault.

Broad brush sale at Home Depot over the weekend?

2wolves: GaryPDX: Obama is perfect. It's always someone else's fault.

Broad brush sale at Home Depot over the weekend?

Well, he's always got plenty of perfect excuses.

GaryPDX: 2wolves: GaryPDX: Obama is perfect. It's always someone else's fault.

Broad brush sale at Home Depot over the weekend?

Well, he's always got plenty of perfect excuses.

You've gone from perfect to plenty of perfect. Progress!

Jesus effing christ, Obama, how do you expect to get a coherent message out when you do all that fancy talkin' stuff? Use SMALL WORDS.

gilgigamesh: I just don't think blaming republicans for the state of the nation, even justifiably, is a very effective campaign strategy.

Why? This country suffered it's worst economic collapse in 70 years because of the Republicans, and the collapse has been prolonged because the Republicans refuse to in any way work towards fixing things. We have an 'opposition' that still thinks tax cuts create jobs, never mind that a net total of zero jobs have been created since the Bush tax cuts were passed, and they still demand we extend them. Republicans also are demanding we massively shrink the deficit during a recession, never mind the easiest way to fix the deficit is to stop with the farking retarded tax cuts and let them expire. Just the failure for the Supercommittee to move, plus not renewing the Bush tax cuts through inaction, reduce the deficit by $6T over the next 10 years, more than anything the Republicans have demanded be passed, and without the crippling economic crash that would happen from their austerity measures. We only have to look at the pending collapse of Europe to know that austerity doesn't work. It's why the Greek debt problem spread - the cuts that they were forced to make didn't stop their deficit, it expanded it, forcing more bailouts and letting the problem spread.

The Republicans are doing every single thing in their power to destroy the economy of the United States of America. To not say so to the American public is reckless and criminal.

gilgigamesh: I just don't think blaming republicans for the state of the nation, even justifiably, is a very effective campaign strategy.

His campaign won't be blaming so much as contrasting. In the interview Obama says Newt or Mitt, it really doesn't matter, because their philosophies are basically the same. Cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and gut regulations. We tried that, it didn't work. That's what Obama will be highlighting as the difference between himself and the eventual GOP nominee.

GaryPDX: Obama is perfect. It's always someone else's fault.

Dusk-You-n-Me: His campaign won't be blaming so much as contrasting.

No, it'll be another pile of strawmen known as the "Those" as in "There are those who want to return to the failed policies of yesterday." Without the explanation of said failed policies being things like pouring money into crony corporations like Solyandra.

DarthBrooks: No, it'll be another pile of strawmen known as the "Those" as in "There are those who want to return to the failed policies of yesterday." Without the explanation of said failed policies being things like pouring money into crony corporations like Solyandra.

The failed policies of yesterday are exactly what Newt and Mitt and every other GOP candidate are proposing. Cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and gut regulations. All Obama has to do is say "We tried that, it didn't work."

As for Solyndra, their money was just 3% of the 1705 program's portfolio. And a loan-loss reserve was built in to the program by Congress. Meaning some failure was planned for. You can harp on this "scandal" all you want, but it won't stop Obama from winning his second term.

Mister President, some of us laymen are not as smart as you. If you would be as so kind to use words that are in the everyday English tongue I would be most appreciative.

DarthBrooks: No, it'll be another pile of strawmen known as the "Those" as in "There are those who want to return to the failed policies of yesterday." Without the explanation of said failed policies being things like pouring money into crony corporations like Solyandra.

Look, if you can't even get the name of the company right, maybe you shouldn't even try.

cman: Mister President, some of us laymen are not as smart as you. If you would be as so kind to use words that are in the everyday English tongue I would be most appreciative.

Call me crazy, but I want the leader of the free world to be smarter than me.

Dusk-You-n-Me: The failed policies of yesterday are exactly what Newt and Mitt and every other GOP candidate are proposing. Cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and gut regulations. All Obama has to do is say "We tried that, it didn't work."

Which, of course, is complete bullshiat. There are peaks and valley's in free market capitalism but it has served America well for 240 years. What we're doing now is what's not working. This micromanagement BS from the Beltway is the problem. We don't have Capitalism right now. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" in Capitalism.

But I know, if only Obama had 100% unfettered power and could borrow 20-30 trillion more from China to bailout all his friends, he would give us all rainbows and unicorns. Right?

Right? At least then he would no-one else to blame.

cameroncrazy1984: cman: Mister President, some of us laymen are not as smart as you. If you would be as so kind to use words that are in the everyday English tongue I would be most appreciative.

Call me crazy, but I want the leader of the free world to be smarter than me.

Enjoy your refund adjustment yet?

GaryPDX: There is no such thing as "too big to fail" in Capitalism.

There is, of course, the concept of "market failures" in capitalism which economists generally state require the need for state intervention to correct because the market mechanisms are insufficient to correct for it.

GaryPDX: Which, of course, is complete bullshiat. There are peaks and valley's in free market capitalism but it has served America well for 240 years. What we're doing now is what's not working. This micromanagement BS from the Beltway is the problem. We don't have Capitalism right now. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" in Capitalism.

What we're doing now is working. 9 quarters in a row of economic growth. It is working too slow for everyone's tastes, especially those currently unemployed, but the economy is growing. Historically low taxes on the wealthy is not working, on that point you're right. We need to raise the rates for the upper brackets and reinvest that money into infrastructure, R&D, and energy. That would really get the economy going again. Which is apparently why we aren't doing it.

Dusk-You-n-Me: DarthBrooks: No, it'll be another pile of strawmen known as the "Those" as in "There are those who want to return to the failed policies of yesterday." Without the explanation of said failed policies being things like pouring money into crony corporations like Solyandra.

The failed policies of yesterday are exactly what Newt and Mitt and every other GOP candidate are proposing. Cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and gut regulations. All Obama has to do is say "We tried that, it didn't work."

As for Solyndra, their money was just 3% of the 1705 program's portfolio. And a loan-loss reserve was built in to the program by Congress. Meaning some failure was planned for. You can harp on this "scandal" all you want, but it won't stop Obama from winning his second term.

Also, Solyndra is the failed policy of yesterday. The first loans came from the Bush administration. Strange how that always gets forgotten when talking about failed policies.

GAT_00: Why?

Because candidates need to stay positive. Defeatism doesn't win elections. You can contrast yourself to the other side and point out that they want to continue failed policies - which is hopefully what Obama will do - but in order to win, Obama has to stay positive.

He also has a disillusioned base containing many folks - myself included - who think that he is far to willing to compromise, and that his skills as a leader are sorely lacking. He needs to acknowledge his own mistakes and promise that he won't repeat them.

gilgigamesh: GAT_00: Why?

Because candidates need to stay positive. Defeatism doesn't win elections. You can contrast yourself to the other side and point out that they want to continue failed policies - which is hopefully what Obama will do - but in order to win, Obama has to stay positive.

He also has a disillusioned base containing many folks - myself included - who think that he is far to willing to compromise, and that his skills as a leader are sorely lacking. He needs to acknowledge his own mistakes and promise that he won't repeat them.

Which goes hand in hand with the last. The next part of that is that "I was willing to compromise and allow these failures to continue in order to get microscopic pieces of my own goals passed. That won't happen again. We need these broad measures, these wholesale changes to move ourselves back forward, and the GOP stands completely opposite to any of it."

gilgigamesh: Because candidates need to stay positive. Defeatism doesn't win elections. You can contrast yourself to the other side and point out that they want to continue failed policies - which is hopefully what Obama will do - but in order to win, Obama has to stay positive.

Er' according to who? Reagan won by dissing on Carter. Which he did so effectively that even today Carter gets a very undeserved bad rap.

Obama doesn't have to put on the happy face all the time nor should he. Times are tough. I prefer a politician who isn't afraid to acknowledge the bleeding obvious. Maybe you would rather somebody mouthed pretty platitudes. I prefer some one who is dealing with reality.

Any positive legislation is blocked.

So let's blame him.

muck4doo: LOL! Hero tag indeed. Give him a big hero hat too. Such awesome leadership.

Just wait till he lands on that carrier, you'll change your tune.

gilgigamesh: I guess he needs to use this line, but it leads to the inescapable conclusion that he is a weak leader; or maybe being more charitable, too hands off a leader.

LBJ would never have allowed congress to get away with the shiat Obama let them pull. When you are president and have an intransigent legislature to deal with, you don't take them farking golfing. You get on the phone and you bully them and threaten their children.

I think he's taken the some lessons from Clinton's mishandling of health care reform in '93. By leading the effort with his own political capital, Clinton provided a personal target for those arrayed against him, and by not negotiating with the insurance industry, his opponents had virtually unlimited funds to attack that target.

Obama wants a second term, and he'll win it easily because he's provided such a small attack surface to his opponents. But this has come at a cost. He doesn't engage Congress at all in public or in the press for important issues, and either on purpose or as a result of this approach, industry has far too much influence in the process - whether it's financial industry regulatory reform, or health care reform. This is also (I hope) the reason he's acting like a moron with the farking deportations and evaporation of civil liberties.

Babwa Wawa: gilgigamesh: I guess he needs to use this line, but it leads to the inescapable conclusion that he is a weak leader; or maybe being more charitable, too hands off a leader.

LBJ would never have allowed congress to get away with the shiat Obama let them pull. When you are president and have an intransigent legislature to deal with, you don't take them farking golfing. You get on the phone and you bully them and threaten their children.

I think he's taken the some lessons from Clinton's mishandling of health care reform in '93. By leading the effort with his own political capital, Clinton provided a personal target for those arrayed against him, and by not negotiating with the insurance industry, his opponents had virtually unlimited funds to attack that target.

Obama wants a second term, and he'll win it easily because he's provided such a small attack surface to his opponents. But this has come at a cost. He doesn't engage Congress at all in public or in the press for important issues, and either on purpose or as a result of this approach, industry has far too much influence in the process - whether it's financial industry regulatory reform, or health care reform. This is also (I hope) the reason he's acting like a moron with the farking deportations and evaporation of civil liberties.

So then we can presume that the real progressive work we hired him to do will get done in his second term, when he's not having to hunker down anymore?

make me some tea: Babwa Wawa: gilgigamesh: I guess he needs to use this line, but it leads to the inescapable conclusion that he is a weak leader; or maybe being more charitable, too hands off a leader.

LBJ would never have allowed congress to get away with the shiat Obama let them pull. When you are president and have an intransigent legislature to deal with, you don't take them farking golfing. You get on the phone and you bully them and threaten their children.

I think he's taken the some lessons from Clinton's mishandling of health care reform in '93. By leading the effort with his own political capital, Clinton provided a personal target for those arrayed against him, and by not negotiating with the insurance industry, his opponents had virtually unlimited funds to attack that target.

Obama wants a second term, and he'll win it easily because he's provided such a small attack surface to his opponents. But this has come at a cost. He doesn't engage Congress at all in public or in the press for important issues, and either on purpose or as a result of this approach, industry has far too much influence in the process - whether it's financial industry regulatory reform, or health care reform. This is also (I hope) the reason he's acting like a moron with the farking deportations and evaporation of civil liberties.

So then we can presume that the real progressive work we hired him to do will get done in his second term, when he's not having to hunker down anymore?

You actually took a politician at his word?

Tsk tsk tsk

make me some tea: So then we can presume that the real progressive work we hired him to do will get done in his second term, when he's not having to hunker down anymore?

well no. he doesn't want to alienate corporate event planners and fundraiser groups that will be hiring him for speaking engagements after his second term. he really can't get serious about enacting progressive reforms until at least 3 years after his second post-presidency memoir is published.

GAT_00: Why? This country suffered it's worst economic collapse in 70 years because of the Republicans, and the collapse has been prolonged because the Republicans refuse to in any way work towards fixing things. We have an 'opposition' that still thinks tax cuts create jobs, never mind that a net total of zero jobs have been created since the Bush tax cuts were passed, and they still demand we extend them. Republicans also are demanding we massively shrink the deficit during a recession, never mind the easiest way to fix the deficit is to stop with the farking retarded tax cuts and let them expire. Just the failure for the Supercommittee to move, plus not renewing the Bush tax cuts through inaction, reduce the deficit by $6T over the next 10 years, more than anything the Republicans have demanded be passed, and without the crippling economic crash that would happen from their austerity measures. We only have to look at the pending collapse of Europe to know that austerity doesn't work. It's why the Greek debt problem spread - the cuts that they were forced to make didn't stop their deficit, it expanded it, forcing more bailouts and letting the problem spread.

The Republicans are doing every single thing in their power to destroy the economy of the United States of America. To not say so to the American public is reckless and criminal.

Well written, GAT_00. And it all bears repeating.

if Obama could just get the GOP to stop chanting 'blood for the blood god/skulls for the skull throne' i'm sure they could reach some sort of compromise on economic issues.