Chicago is full of 'em.CenterBHSFan wrote:QFT!
I've always said he had a bunch of guttersnipes working for him.
Obama is scoring legislative and policy victories, but that has nothing to do with the 2010 and 2012 elections.IggyPride00 wrote: Is anyone else amazed at the way Obama's presidency has risen from the dead (Hannity does call him the Messiah) the way it has?
Scott Brown was supposed to be the 41st vote to kill off the Obama agenda, and instead all it has done is embolden him.
Apathetic Democrats are now fired up and campaign contributions are pouring in now that HCR has passed.
Could the anti-Obama momentum have peaked on the night Scott Brown won? Democrats are not depressed anymore, and off year elections are all about turnout. If he keeps giving liberals victories and gets them fired up to turn out this might not be the whitewash it would have had HCR not passed.
I have been reading about how the White House likes the feeling right now having passed major legislation and defeated a determined opponent. They are now not scared to take them on again.
What kind of damage can BHO do in another 8 months before elections with the wind at his back?
It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses.
Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments -- a constitutional gimmick that allows a president to appoint someone when Congress is in recess to a job that normally requires Senate approval. The appointee serves until the next round of Congressional elections.
Priceless. :rolleyes:WASHINGTON — President Obama, making a muscular show of his executive authority just one day after Congress left for spring recess, said Saturday that he would bypass the Senate and install 15 appointees, including a union lawyer whose nomination to the National Labor Relations Board was blocked last month with the help of two Democrats. Coming on the heels of Mr. Obama’s big victory on health care legislation, Saturday’s move suggests a newly emboldened president who is unafraid to provoke a confrontation with the minority party.
So, Congress should just approve whoever a President nominates?gibby08 wrote: If Congress had done their damn jobs....he wouldn't have to do this
There is actually some truth to "if they would have done their job". While there were attempts at blocking some of these appointees, it's been said that republicans voiced no opinion of others. So if you are indifferent, why not just approve them?CenterBHSFan wrote:So, Congress should just approve whoever a President nominates?gibby08 wrote: If Congress had done their damn jobs....he wouldn't have to do this
Andy, why did he HAVE to do it? There are no other equally qualified people to nominate?
Both dem's and repub's opposed this particular radical................... but the socialist has now appointed him anyway, once again undermining the will of THE PEOPLE.LJ wrote: There is actually some truth to "if they would have done their job". While there were attempts at blocking some of these appointees, it's been said that republicans voiced no opinion of others. So if you are indifferent, why not just approve them?
I'm not talking about "this particular radical" I am talking about some of the other 77 nominees that they are holding their nuts on and some of the 15 that he is going to go ahead and appoint. I don't know about you, but I am not a fan of my government being inefficient for the sake of being inefficient.QuakerOats wrote:Both dem's and repub's opposed this particular radical................... but the socialist has now appointed him anyway, once again undermining the will of THE PEOPLE.LJ wrote: There is actually some truth to "if they would have done their job". While there were attempts at blocking some of these appointees, it's been said that republicans voiced no opinion of others. So if you are indifferent, why not just approve them?
Change we can believe in .........................
Why don't you use a neutral site when listing broken promises? Something like factcheck or politicofact?Writerbuckeye wrote: RECESS APPOINTMENTS
STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
He got bipartisanship alright- there was bipartisan opposition to both the stimulus bill and Obamacare. The debacle was the healthcare passage, not its attempted obstruction.Paladin wrote: Actually, Obama is merely moving on after TRYING to get bipartisanship in Congress only to have his hand slapped repeatedly. After the debacle of healthcare obstruction by the Rs lying thru their teeth and inciting violence, these recess appointments after having them endlessly held up is just the tip of the iceberg. The honeymoon is over and the Rs just proved they are not worth trying to work with. Take the mandate of the election and push aggressively on.
Yeah because a dated quote is unfactual and twisted to suit someone's opinion.Footwedge wrote:Why don't you use a neutral site when listing broken promises? Something like factcheck or politicofact?Writerbuckeye wrote: RECESS APPOINTMENTS
STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
If I wanted to waste some time, I could compare and contrast the real facts with the twisted ones presented by tha National Review.
My source was so bad that Hotair decided it was worthwhile to link it as part of their daily package of political stories.jhay78 wrote:Yeah because a dated quote is unfactual and twisted to suit someone's opinion.Footwedge wrote:Why don't you use a neutral site when listing broken promises? Something like factcheck or politicofact?Writerbuckeye wrote: RECESS APPOINTMENTS
STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
If I wanted to waste some time, I could compare and contrast the real facts with the twisted ones presented by tha National Review.
Yes...please do that, Bam. I'm begging you.....Paladin wrote: Actually, Obama is merely moving on after TRYING to get bipartisanship in Congress only to have his hand slapped repeatedly. After the debacle of healthcare obstruction by the Rs lying thru their teeth and inciting violence, these recess appointments after having them endlessly held up is just the tip of the iceberg. The honeymoon is over and the Rs just proved they are not worth trying to work with. Take the mandate of the election and push aggressively on.
And while you're at it, please, please, please link to these incidents of "incited violence" you and other libs keep talking about.fish82 wrote:Yes...please do that, Bam. I'm begging you.....Paladin wrote: Actually, Obama is merely moving on after TRYING to get bipartisanship in Congress only to have his hand slapped repeatedly. After the debacle of healthcare obstruction by the Rs lying thru their teeth and inciting violence, these recess appointments after having them endlessly held up is just the tip of the iceberg. The honeymoon is over and the Rs just proved they are not worth trying to work with. Take the mandate of the election and push aggressively on.
Huh? I have no idea what you mean here. If one wants to list the unfulfilled promises by Obama, I don't think the majority of people will waste their time in reading a list "compiled by the National Review". Would you waste your time on a list "compiled by the DailyKos'???jhay78 wrote:Yeah because a dated quote is unfactual and twisted to suit someone's opinion.Footwedge wrote:Why don't you use a neutral site when listing broken promises? Something like factcheck or politicofact?Writerbuckeye wrote: RECESS APPOINTMENTS
STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
If I wanted to waste some time, I could compare and contrast the real facts with the twisted ones presented by tha National Review.
I agree. Give your opinion, site your source and if the the facts in the article cited are weak there should be no problem debunking it. I personally on rare occasion have read factual articles on Huff Po, Daily Kos, Media Matters. I admit I approach them with a grain of salt but don't dismiss them outright. I personally don't bow at the alter of self proclaimed fact sites. Just because they put the word "fact" in their web address does not give them a monopoly on the facts. I have a level head on my shoulders and can discern the difference between facts, lies and political opinion.Writerbuckeye wrote: Why not refute the facts instead of attacking the source if you're so damn sure the information is wrong?
Because it's not wrong, that's why.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35162.htmlfish82 wrote:Meh. He's had a good week. It's not like he wasn't due for one or anything.IggyPride00 wrote: Is anyone else amazed at the way Obama's presidency has risen from the dead (Hannity does call him the Messiah) the way it has?
Scott Brown was supposed to be the 41st vote to kill off the Obama agenda, and instead all it has done is embolden him.
Apathetic Democrats are now fired up and campaign contributions are pouring in now that HCR has passed.
Could the anti-Obama momentum have peaked on the night Scott Brown won? Democrats are not depressed anymore, and off year elections are all about turnout. If he keeps giving liberals victories and gets them fired up to turn out this might not be the whitewash it would have had HCR not passed.
I have been reading about how the White House likes the feeling right now having passed major legislation and defeated a determined opponent. They are now not scared to take them on again.
What kind of damage can BHO do in another 8 months before elections with the wind at his back?
Obviously it's better for him that he got it passed, but I'd give it another couple weeks before I pronounce him on a roll.
