PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama On The C-SPAN "Mistake"


petegz28
01-26-2010, 08:53 PM
"I think your question points out to a legitimate mistake that I made during the course of the year, and that is that we had to make so many decisions quickly, in a very difficult set of circumstances, that after awhile, we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right."

More Obama: "But I had campaigned on process. Part of what I had campaigned on was changing how Washington works, opening up transparency and I think the health care debate, as it unfolded, legitimately raised concerns, not just among my opponents, but also among supporters that we just don't know what's going on. And it's an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals."

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/01/obama_on_the_c-span_mistake.php

Donger
01-26-2010, 08:58 PM
So, he was fine with those back room deals when it looked like they might get something passed, and now he's against them?

blaise
01-26-2010, 09:03 PM
so, in other words, I wanted transparency for some stuff, especially for things that reflected poorly on the previous administration, but not for other stuff when it became a nuisance to getting what I wanted.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:10 PM
I like how he said "it LOOKS like there are a bunch of backroom deals". Would that be because there were????

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:11 PM
Speaking just five days earlier, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama said:

"I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on the, you know this provision, or that law, or are we making a good, rational decision here...that people will get it..."

Uh, what???

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:16 PM
Diane today said to the president, "a lot of people think you must say at the end of the day, this is not who I was in 2008, these deals with Nebraska, with Florida... "

"Let's hold on a second, Diane," the president cut in. "I mean, I think that this gets into a big mush. So let's just clarify. I didn't make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked."

It has been noted that Rahm Emannuel has been a part of every decision being made. So this is another lie. And now, he is pointing fingers at the Congress.

Does this mother fucker ever not blame someone else?

Taco John
01-26-2010, 09:42 PM
Uh, what???

He's bought into his own legend.

blaise
01-26-2010, 09:48 PM
Uh, what???

Let me be clear. I just said a bunch of stuff during the campaign that sounded good and now I realize there's no real way to do a lot of that stuff I talked about.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 06:35 AM
At least he can admit mistakes.

He doesn't control Congress. Unless we want to get rid of the lobbyists and stop pac's, backroom deals are going to continue on forever.

But we are not even heading that way. The SCOTUS just said lets expand the idea and let corperations use unlimited funds to alter legislation that will maybe take some of their profits away. Doesn't matter if its good for the citizens they are suppose to be representing, let them buy congress.

memyselfI
01-27-2010, 06:41 AM
He admits mistakes simply so he can proceed to continue to keep making them. He's 'sorry' but not enough to change the error.

InChiefsHell
01-27-2010, 06:41 AM
Uh, wait a second people...let's be clear. I can't control the Congress, because let's face it, all I really am is a good looking community organizer who reads a teleprompter. If I ever make a mistake, it's somebody else's fault, like the Congress, my advisers, or of course Bush.

Royal Fanatic
01-27-2010, 07:35 AM
Obama made it clear a long time ago that the things he says when he is running for office are simply "campaign rhetoric" and have nothing to do with how he would actually govern after winning the election.

bkkcoh
01-27-2010, 07:37 AM
Let me be clear. I just said a bunch of stuff during the campaign that sounded good and now I realize there's no real way to do a lot of that stuff I talked about.

I didn't have all of the information until I took the oath of office and by then it was worse then even I anticipated it to be. I can't be expected to be help to my campaign promises, can I?

patteeu
01-27-2010, 07:40 AM
Uh, what???

He's saying that he was busing doing the right thing for the American people and he was a little surprised when they ended up being too stupid to get it.

Warrior5
01-27-2010, 08:12 AM
Just so I'm clear on this... he was for the back room deals before he was against them?

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 08:23 AM
Unless we want to get rid of the lobbyists and stop pac's, backroom deals are going to continue on forever.


I'm sure you'd love that as well.

Let's just do away with the 1st amendment altogether.

You really are a closet fascist.

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 08:42 AM
Y'know? This could work.

In much the same way that Obama ran his 2008 campaign against the previous eight years, he could run against his previous four years in 2112. He's just elusive enough that he could ride the switchback on the "same wave of resentment" that propelled Brown into office.

Then he could spend the next four years talking about how he inherited the previous four years from a president that was well meaning but inexperienced and perhaps too hopeful. (And who would ever want to take a chance on a guy with no applicable experience, eh? So who would be better qualified than Pres. Obama to ride in to rescue us from that mess?)

It's not like his adorers have ever thought through what he's actually saying and doing.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 09:17 AM
Y'know? This could work.

In much the same way that Obama ran his 2008 campaign against the previous eight years, he could run against his previous four years in 2112. He's just elusive enough that he could ride the switchback on the "same wave of resentment" that propelled Brown into office.

Then he could spend the next four years talking about how he inherited the previous four years from a president that was well meaning but inexperienced and perhaps too hopeful. (And who would ever want to take a chance on a guy with no applicable experience, eh? So who would be better qualified than Pres. Obama to ride in to rescue us from that mess?)

It's not like his adorers have ever thought through what he's actually saying and doing.

ROFL Rahm is that you?

wild1
01-27-2010, 10:07 AM
So, he was fine with those back room deals when it looked like they might get something passed, and now he's against them?

He's for whatever advances his agenda, no matter what statements he made before on the subject or may make later.

mlyonsd
01-27-2010, 10:21 AM
Just so I'm clear on this... he was for the back room deals before he was against them?

Not quite.....he was against them when just a lowly candidate for president.

He was for them when he and his party held unbeatable majorities in congress and it didn't really matter what anyone else thought.

Now he's against them again because they over predicted how stupid the american voter/public was and all of a sudden their political lives could be at stake.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:39 AM
Y'know? This could work.

In much the same way that Obama ran his 2008 campaign against the previous eight years, he could run against his previous four years in 2112. He's just elusive enough that he could ride the switchback on the "same wave of resentment" that propelled Brown into office.

Then he could spend the next four years talking about how he inherited the previous four years from a president that was well meaning but inexperienced and perhaps too hopeful. (And who would ever want to take a chance on a guy with no applicable experience, eh? So who would be better qualified than Pres. Obama to ride in to rescue us from that mess?)

It's not like his adorers have ever thought through what he's actually saying and doing.


Come run my campaign.

I've chaired a few clubs in school, and was the social chairman for my fraternity, so I uh, have a shot. Of course, I'd want to put an immediate stop to all the wars we've got, and deal with terrorism more surgically through the mechanism of Marque and Reprisal, sooooo... I probably wouldn't qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize. We'll have challenges.

Warrior5
01-27-2010, 11:01 AM
Not quite.....he was against them when just a lowly candidate for president.

He was for them when he and his party held unbeatable majorities in congress and it didn't really matter what anyone else thought.

Now he's against them again because they over predicted how stupid the american voter/public was and all of a sudden their political lives could be at stake.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Ahh, now I'm clear. Thanks!

wait...

talastan
01-27-2010, 12:04 PM
Does this mother ****er ever not blame someone else?

Yay! We have the presidential version of Herm Edwards running our country!! ROFL

That's right O, throw them all under the bus.

Rooster
01-27-2010, 12:27 PM
Y'know? This could work.

In much the same way that Obama ran his 2008 campaign against the previous eight years, he could run against his previous four years in 2112. He's just elusive enough that he could ride the switchback on the "same wave of resentment" that propelled Brown into office.

Then he could spend the next four years talking about how he inherited the previous four years from a president that was well meaning but inexperienced and perhaps too hopeful. (And who would ever want to take a chance on a guy with no applicable experience, eh? So who would be better qualified than Pres. Obama to ride in to rescue us from that mess?)

It's not like his adorers have ever thought through what he's actually saying and doing.

ROFLROFL Holy Shit... That's so crazy it just might work.