If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Boehner: "Obama doesn't have a budget". Press: "It's on his website." Boehner: "Well if it was a real plan why doesn't the Senate pass it?" Press: *crickets*. What Press should have said: "The Senate voted on it last week; the GOP filibustered it"   (nbcnews.com) divider line 20
    More: Fail, Senate, GOP, Gene Sperling, structural deficit  
•       •       •

1698 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2013 at 11:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-04 12:16:37 PM
4 votes:
Democrats: "1 + 1 = 2"

Republicans: "1 + 1 = 3"

Press: "1 + 1 = 2.5"
2013-03-04 11:42:03 AM
4 votes:

DamnYankees: Obama is winning the war on messaging. Pretty easily. He's way more popular than the GOP, and voters greatly prefer his method for handling the budget to the GOP's. It doesn't matter; the GOP just re-won the House. They have no reason to compromise unless they lose elections, which is extremely unlikely given the composition of House districts.


The GOP is polling poorly at the outset of the sequester.  They will hammer home lie after lie after lie after lie and never relent, never shift, never budge and abuse their position and the media's fixation on equal blame and they will win this war on messaging.  I've seen it too many times.  The Democrats are not interested in getting down and fighting back when this happens.  They assume people are paying attention to the facts but they aren't.  They are paying attention to stupid farking soundbites, and Boehner on Meet the Press, and whatever nonsense.

Obama won the election because the GOP put up a monumentally stupid candidate to placate monumentally stupid voters.  They have a stupid cast, they have a stupid supporting structure, but they have a blithely incompetent media that they can use to make sure that no matter how much they fark every single thing up, that they will only receive 50% of the blame, even when they get 98% of what they want.
2013-03-04 11:45:19 AM
3 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.


No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.
2013-03-04 11:38:49 AM
3 votes:
Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.
2013-03-04 11:36:12 AM
3 votes:
I didn't have to click the link to know that this was a giant David Gregory fail.

What a good way to fark up a show, put David Gregory on it.
2013-03-04 11:31:40 AM
2 votes:
Damn Liberal media.
2013-03-04 11:02:05 AM
2 votes:
I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit to very clearly lay out exactly why and how this problem exists.  It needs to be said, it needs to be said when people are watching and it needs to be said directly, confrontationally and in a manner that can't be instantly spun.  He needs to respond to incredulous bullshiat like "Senate Democrats haven't acted" by saying all of their legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans.  But somehow this gets lost in the transfer and comes out as "We're totes trying you guys".

No wonder the GOP always wins the war on messaging.
2013-03-04 02:51:46 PM
1 votes:

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Democrats: "1 + 1 = 2"

Republicans: "1 + 1 = 3"

Press: "1 + 1 = 2.5"


Closer to:

Democrats: "1+1= 2.1"

Republicans: "1+1= potato"

Media: "1+1= 2.1GATE!!!!!"
2013-03-04 01:46:46 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: So close, Gregory. But epic fail.


This is why Maddow needs to host MTP. Gregory is inept at best
2013-03-04 12:41:53 PM
1 votes:

Mentat: NeoCortex42: MyKingdomForYourHorse: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

Not enough Blue Dogs to get anything meaningful, at best we might get a rule change that eliminates the gentleman agreement

I think just requiring a filibuster to actually be a person standing up and talking continuously would help a lot.  Instead of Boehner repeatedly going on about how the Senate is doing nothing, there would be hours and hours of footage of the Republicans actively blocking votes.  Just saying "there was a filibuster" doesn't seem to be enough for the media to cover them properly.

They don't even need to do that.  They could eliminate the anonymous hold (if you want to filibuster, put your name on it) and introduce a tiered filibuster (2/3 for week 1, 3/5 for week 2, simple majority for every week after).  That would preserve minority rights while ensuring that the minority cannot lock up legislation forever.



Eliminating the hold would have been the easiest option.  It does nothing to halt the process and gives the full defense option to the minority, but you would have to actually make a stand on an issue and put your name on it.  It would create accountability in Congress...So it will never happen.
2013-03-04 12:08:03 PM
1 votes:

Snowflake Tubbybottom: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

I believe that filibustering does not apply to the budget process according to their rules.

However, the filibuster cannot be used to block a budget resolution. That's because the Budget Act sets out a specific amount of time for debate in the Senate -- 50 hours. If a specific amount of debate time is enshrined in the controlling statute, the filibuster is moot. So a simple majority -- not 60 votes -- is all that's required to pass a budget resolution.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/f eb/13/jack-le w/white-house-chief-staff-jack-lew-says-budget-requi/


Politifact had it very wrong on this, as usual (Politifact is horseshiat, was horseshiat, and always will be horseshiat, regardless of the issue or party or politician being discussed). The Senate cannot proceed on any matters related to the budget resolution without either the House concurring (with no changes) or a deeming resolution declaring that the resolution has been passed for the purposes of Senate procedure. On top of that, an appropriations bill that is not the yearly budget resolution apparently can be filibustered. It's a mess, which is why many progressives have been demanding an end to the filibuster even if it means that a later Republican Senate can get away with murder later.
2013-03-04 11:53:17 AM
1 votes:

MyKingdomForYourHorse: DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.

I disagree, Tim had his corporate apologist moments but never anything that blatant.


He let people lie and lie and lie and lie on his show to sell war (not to mention all the other crap from his tenure). I don't know why anyone would think he was better at anything.
2013-03-04 11:52:07 AM
1 votes:

MyKingdomForYourHorse: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

Not enough Blue Dogs to get anything meaningful, at best we might get a rule change that eliminates the gentleman agreement


I think just requiring a filibuster to actually be a person standing up and talking continuously would help a lot.  Instead of Boehner repeatedly going on about how the Senate is doing nothing, there would be hours and hours of footage of the Republicans actively blocking votes.  Just saying "there was a filibuster" doesn't seem to be enough for the media to cover them properly.
2013-03-04 11:46:35 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.


Soledad would have called him on it.
2013-03-04 11:46:24 AM
1 votes:
Why is it the job of the Press to inform the Speaker of the House what's going on in Congress?
2013-03-04 11:43:16 AM
1 votes:

homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?


Probably, the so called "nuclear option," but it doesn't change the fact all appropriation bills must start in the House and Boehner is sitting on his hands.
2013-03-04 11:36:28 AM
1 votes:
FTFA:
DAVID GREGORY:
So Speaker, what happens now? What do you think the impact of all of this is? The president is saying there will be a ripple effect in the economy. There will be a growth cut. There will be a loss of 750,000 jobs. What's the impact?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER:
Well, then, why hasn't he acted?


Acted to do what?  I really don't get this one at all.  What sorcery do they expect the President to conjure up because Congress didn't do something?
2013-03-04 11:33:17 AM
1 votes:

make me some tea: I'm pretty much convinced that very few of those who are in the position to make decisions actually understand the entirety of this thing.


You are a kind soul to even allow that as a possibility.  I'm more inclined to believe they all know exactly what they are doing.  The words coming out of their mouths may sound ignorant but their intent is dangerously well served by them.
2013-03-04 11:04:17 AM
1 votes:

Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit to very clearly lay out exactly why and how this problem exists.  It needs to be said, it needs to be said when people are watching and it needs to be said directly, confrontationally and in a manner that can't be instantly spun.  He needs to respond to incredulous bullshiat like "Senate Democrats haven't acted" by saying all of their legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans.  But somehow this gets lost in the transfer and comes out as "We're totes trying you guys".

No wonder the GOP always wins the war on messaging.


Obama is winning the war on messaging. Pretty easily. He's way more popular than the GOP, and voters greatly prefer his method for handling the budget to the GOP's. It doesn't matter; the GOP just re-won the House. They have no reason to compromise unless they lose elections, which is extremely unlikely given the composition of House districts.
2013-03-04 10:39:56 AM
1 votes:
So close, Gregory. But epic fail.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report