PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Lame Duck Obama Invites Gridlock


Taco John
11-29-2012, 09:22 PM
This is an awesome story. It's basically about how Obama plans to hard line the Republicans, and in essence invite gridlock for his second term. Cant blame him. He's a lame duck before his term begins. He has to at least show his base that he "tried" to make "progress." But for those of us who enjoy seeing Washington paralyzed, we might be in a golden age.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/29/obama-to-gop-i-wont-negotiate-with-myself/

Shaid
11-29-2012, 09:59 PM
Obama holds all the cards. Do nothing and the Bush tax cuts expire and then just pass a tax cut on the lower income folks.

patteeu
11-29-2012, 10:00 PM
He gets to claim he was swinging for the fence with his base and he gets a boogieman (the Republicans in the House who hopefully refuse to roll over) to blame for the next four years of bad economy.

I don't know who Peter Suderman is, but I thought his tweet about Obama's ridiculous "proposal" was funny:

Republicans hear Obama's opening bid, counter with: Eliminate the federal government, except for defense.

BigRedChief
11-29-2012, 10:07 PM
We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

patteeu
11-29-2012, 10:24 PM
We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

This isn't just about taxes. The proposal presented by Tim Geithner included increased taxes of $1.6 trillion, NEW SPENDING on pet democrat projects, minor unspecified upfront spending cuts, and a promise to talk about spending cuts in the future with no guarantees.

He absolutely refuses to make a serious proposal with specific, real spending cuts. He challenges Republicans to set their mark with specifcs, apparently thinking that Republicans won't remember the last time they took him up on such an offer (with the Ryan budget) and got nothing but demagoguery in return.

The guy is not a leader and our country will suffer for it. But at least no one has to worry about whether Sandra Fluke will get her post-coitus birth control.

patteeu
11-29-2012, 10:27 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/11/RAMFNLclr-113012-compromise.jpg.cms_.jpeg

Shaid
11-29-2012, 10:54 PM
This isn't just about taxes. The proposal presented by Tim Geithner included increased taxes of $1.6 trillion, NEW SPENDING on pet democrat projects, minor unspecified upfront spending cuts, and a promise to talk about spending cuts in the future with no guarantees.

He absolutely refuses to make a serious proposal with specific, real spending cuts. He challenges Republicans to set their mark with specifcs, apparently thinking that Republicans won't remember the last time they took him up on such an offer (with the Ryan budget) and got nothing but demagoguery in return.

The guy is not a leader and our country will suffer for it. But at least no one has to worry about whether Sandra Fluke will get her post-coitus birth control.

Apparently you are forgetting Obama made the "grand compromise" before and the repubs wouldn't budge. They should have taken the deal then instead of kicking the can. Now they have no choice on the tax increases so the only thing to really compromise on is where are the cuts going to happen? I expect some small cuts in Social Security on the areas that have no impact on end people, like some of the payouts to drug companies. The dems will ask for some military cuts. The only discussion on the table is spending cuts and they'll have to meet in the middle there and that might not happen until after the new year.

patteeu
11-29-2012, 11:03 PM
Apparently you are forgetting Obama made the "grand compromise" before and the repubs wouldn't budge. They should have taken the deal then instead of kicking the can. Now they have no choice on the tax increases so the only thing to really compromise on is where are the cuts going to happen? I expect some small cuts in Social Security on the areas that have no impact on end people, like some of the payouts to drug companies. The dems will ask for some military cuts. The only discussion on the table is spending cuts and they'll have to meet in the middle there and that might not happen until after the new year.

Obama made no grand compromise.

Shaid
11-29-2012, 11:11 PM
Obama made no grand compromise.

2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.

Taco John
11-29-2012, 11:49 PM
We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

The majority of Americans didn't vote.

And no, I"m not surprised by any of this. I expected Obama to be a lame duck. I just didn't think his strategy would play into it so harshly.

Taco John
11-29-2012, 11:53 PM
2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.

Anything that includes revenue increases should be off the table until there is a new budget spending freeze. Freezing the budget and locking out new spending is a compromise. What good is it to cut if you're just piling more on the plate?

cosmo20002
11-29-2012, 11:56 PM
The majority of Americans didn't vote.

And no, I"m not surprised by any of this. I expected Obama to be a lame duck. I just didn't think his strategy would play into it so harshly.

What tipped you off? The two-term limit? Can't get one past you.

patteeu
11-30-2012, 06:15 AM
2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.

The movement Obama made was moving the finish line for a proposed deal making sure it wouldn't happen.

SNR
11-30-2012, 10:26 AM
We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

We really could have used you in Wisconsin during the winter of 2011.

donkhater
11-30-2012, 10:38 AM
2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.

....and he campaigned on a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

the latest White House proposal?

$1.6 trillion in 'revenue'
$400 billlion in spending cuts (not specific or immediate of, course)

so the 3:1 ratio he campaigned on to show himself that he believes in a balanced approach is actually 1:4....if that.

The other thing is how do the Dems get away with saying that it is up to the Republicans to offer up their cuts? (Actually we all know the answer to that). I thought THEY were in the leadership positions!!

Anyone can see what's going on. The White House proposes revenue increases based on taxing the rich (which BTW will never give $1.6 trillion over 10 years) and scant spending cut details. Then it says the Republicans should offer up the spending cuts, which will of course be unpopular and the Dems can demagouge the hell out of.

Boehner should absolutely not budget on revenue until the spending cuts are large and immediate.

TEX
11-30-2012, 11:14 AM
....and he campaigned on a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

the latest White House proposal?

$1.6 trillion in 'revenue'
$400 billlion in spending cuts (not specific or immediate of, course)

so the 3:1 ratio he campaigned on to show himself that he believes in a balanced approach is actually 1:4....if that.

The other thing is how do the Dems get away with saying that it is up to the Republicans to offer up their cuts? (Actually we all know the answer to that). I thought THEY were in the leadership positions!!

Anyone can see what's going on. The White House proposes revenue increases based on taxing the rich (which BTW will never give $1.6 trillion over 10 years) and scant spending cut details. Then it says the Republicans should offer up the spending cuts, which will of course be unpopular and the Dems can demagouge the hell out of.

Boehner should absolutely not budget on revenue until the spending cuts are large and immediate.

Yep, and the reality is it's NOT just,"Taxing the rich". My taxes are going up and I'm not "rich." Same for most Americans with jobs making over $40K NOT the often quoted $250K mark. :shake:

ChiTown
11-30-2012, 11:18 AM
Is anyone actually surprised by any of this?

ROYC75
12-01-2012, 11:44 PM
Is anyone actually surprised by any of this?

Nope, yet it will be the R's fault.

BigRedChief
12-02-2012, 06:31 AM
The majority of Americans didn't vote.They had a chance to vote, to voice their opinion. Those who decided to get off their couch voted. The majority of those said raise the taxers on the rich. It's a done deal.

BigRedChief
12-02-2012, 06:34 AM
....and he campaigned on a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

the latest White House proposal?

$1.6 trillion in 'revenue'
$400 billlion in spending cuts (not specific or immediate of, course)

so the 3:1 ratio he campaigned on to show himself that he believes in a balanced approach is actually 1:4....if that.

The other thing is how do the Dems get away with saying that it is up to the Republicans to offer up their cuts? (Actually we all know the answer to that). I thought THEY were in the leadership positions!!

Anyone can see what's going on. The White House proposes revenue increases based on taxing the rich (which BTW will never give $1.6 trillion over 10 years) and scant spending cut details. Then it says the Republicans should offer up the spending cuts, which will of course be unpopular and the Dems can demagouge the hell out of.

Boehner should absolutely not budget on revenue until the spending cuts are large and immediate.opening offer. What have the R's offered as a plan?

mlyonsd
12-02-2012, 08:09 AM
opening offer. What have the R's offered as a plan?I bet the first time the word 'entitlements' came out of Boehner's mouth the secret service tazed him.

BigRedChief
12-02-2012, 08:58 AM
I7 %bet the first time the word 'entitlements' came out of Boehner's mouth the secret service tazed him.Where's the R's plan?

You know as well as I do why they haven't put forward a plan, the American people will hate it and provide fodder in the next elections.

But, everyone knows medicare needs to be reformed. Obama is the best President to reform entitlements. But nothing is going to happen until Grover Norquist loses his power. And the tax rates on the rich go up to the Clinton era. He is not elected official. No one elected him. Republicans need to kick him to the curb and remember who they swore alligiance to, who they really work for.

The Republicans get to keep 98% of the Bush tax cuts. Thats a friggin victory for the R's for crissakes.

mlyonsd
12-02-2012, 09:01 AM
Where's the R's plan?

You know as well as I do why they haven't put forward a plan, the American people will hate it and provide fodder in the next elections.

But, everyone knows medicare needs to be reformed. Obama is the best President to reform entitlements. But nothing is going to happen until Grover Norquist loses his power. And the tax rates on the rich go up to the Clinton era. He is not elected official. No one elected him. Republicans need to kick him to the curb and remember who they swore alligiance to, who they really work for.

Do you think if Obama thew true entitlement reform into the discussions the republicans would consider raising taxes?

BigRedChief
12-02-2012, 09:05 AM
Do you think if Obama thew true entitlement reform into the discussions the republicans would consider raising taxes?I think Social Security is off the table for this rounds. It's sound for another 25 years and it doesn't contribute to the deficit.

But, yes I do see Obama doing entitlement reform before he leaves office. The r's will make the best deal possible and sign off on the deal. The R's know they could never lead on entitlement reform.

mlyonsd
12-02-2012, 09:11 AM
I think Social Security is off the table for this rounds. It's sound for another 25 years and it doesn't contribute to the deficit.

But, yes I do see Obama doing entitlement reform before he leaves office. The r's will make the best deal possible and sign off on the deal. The R's know they could never lead on entitlement reform.Fine, but maybe the republicans know this might be their best chance to force Obama to actually do something about entitlements.

BigRedChief
12-02-2012, 09:45 AM
Fine, but maybe the republicans know this might be their best chance to force Obama to actually do something about entitlements.They would be very wrong. If Republicans deny 98% of Americans a tax cut and cause America to fall off the fiscal cliff because they wanted tax cuts for the top 2% they will get clobbered as a party.

We had an election, the people voted. The tax cuts are gone for the top 2%. Thats just the initial step. The r's need to take their permanent tax cut for 98% of Americans and declare victory.

petegz28
12-02-2012, 09:54 AM
They would be very wrong. If Republicans deny 98% of Americans a tax cut and cause America to fall off the fiscal cliff because they wanted tax cuts for the top 2% they will get clobbered as a party.

We had an election, the people voted. The tax cuts are gone for the top 2%. Thats just the initial step. The r's need to take their permanent tax cut for 98% of Americans and declare victory.

Yeah, fuck the spending cuts and what not.....:shake:

petegz28
12-02-2012, 09:59 AM
This whole thing is so typical of why I can't vote for democrats. Their idea of compromise is "do what we want you to do". They have no interest in compromise, they never have.

The plain fact is the Dems want to keep spending. They won't pass a budget, they won't talk about spending cuts, etc., etc. They just want to tax the rich more, which won't do shit, and keep on spending money they don't have and then blame it on the R's and stupid people will buy it.

donkhater
12-02-2012, 10:06 AM
Where's the R's plan?

You know as well as I do why they haven't put forward a plan, the American people will hate it and provide fodder in the next elections.

But, everyone knows medicare needs to be reformed. Obama is the best President to reform entitlements. But nothing is going to happen until Grover Norquist loses his power. And the tax rates on the rich go up to the Clinton era. He is not elected official. No one elected him. Republicans need to kick him to the curb and remember who they swore alligiance to, who they really work for.

The Republicans get to keep 98% of the Bush tax cuts. Thats a friggin victory for the R's for crissakes.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Why is it up to the GOP? Didn't the Democrats seek and get the opportunity to lead the country for the next four years? Shouldn't the American public have the expectation that THEY provide a serious solution for our 'crisis'?

The proposal that has been put forth by the White House is essentially what they proposed in their last budget which NO ONE, democrat or republican, voted for in the Senate.

Why is it unreasonable to have the expectation that the party in the position of leadership lead? Scant spending cuts when it is obvious to anyone with a brain that nothing will change without serious spending reform is absolutely ridiculous. The GOP will counter with unpopular, yet needed, spending suggestions (which undoubtedly will still be not enough) and be demagogued like hell for it. You know and I know this is the Chicago way. That is not leadership.

donkhater
12-02-2012, 10:11 AM
When Paul Ryan's plan, which wouldn't balance the budget for around 20 years, gets roundly criticized as a 'throw grandma over the cliff' budget, it is clear as day that the current leadership has absolutely no stomach to do what's necessary.

Going over the fiscal cliff will hurt, but what does anyone expect for the blatant irresponsible spending that has occurred over the last couple decades? Any real solution is going to hurt. It's time to take our medicine.

BigRedChief
12-02-2012, 10:17 AM
This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Why is it up to the GOP? Didn't the Democrats seek and get the opportunity to lead the country for the next four years? Shouldn't the American public have the expectation that THEY provide a serious solution for our 'crisis'?

The proposal that has been put forth by the White House is essentially what they proposed in their last budget which NO ONE, democrat or republican, voted for in the Senate.

Why is it unreasonable to have the expectation that the party in the position of leadership lead? Scant spending cuts when it is obvious to anyone with a brain that nothing will change without serious spending reform is absolutely ridiculous. The GOP will counter with unpopular, yet needed, spending suggestions (which undoubtedly will still be not enough) and be demagogued like hell for it. You know and I know this is the Chicago way. That is not leadership.The Republicans brought this on themselfs. Obama would propose a plan in the middle and then have to move to the right to get a deal done. The R's have taught him to make your first offer a partisan one because a middle of the road one doesn;t get a deal done.

The last fiscal cliff Obama caved on everything. All spending cuts and no revenue. We can't cut our way out of this mess and Obama is not going to just go along with the Republican plan like he did last time.

Radar Chief
12-02-2012, 10:19 AM
opening offer. What have the R's offered as a plan?

The "R's" already gave Obama a plan and at the last minute he crapped on it.

BigRedChief
12-02-2012, 10:23 AM
The "R's" already gave Obama a plan and at the last minute he crapped on it. Your turn.When did this happen? I've watched the Sunday shows and there is no new Republican proposals.

Radar Chief
12-02-2012, 10:29 AM
When did this happen? I've watched the Sunday shows and there is no new Republican proposals.

:facepalm: Were you sleeping under a rock when Boehner and "the R's" agreed to a budget deal that Obama changed at the last minute, or something?

mlyonsd
12-02-2012, 10:32 AM
They would be very wrong. If Republicans deny 98% of Americans a tax cut and cause America to fall off the fiscal cliff because they wanted tax cuts for the top 2% they will get clobbered as a party.

We had an election, the people voted. The tax cuts are gone for the top 2%. Thats just the initial step. The r's need to take their permanent tax cut for 98% of Americans and declare victory.If republicans cave to the irresponsible leadership coming from the frat house they deserve to get clobbered.

Obama's plan fixes nothing. Nothing.

donkhater
12-02-2012, 11:07 AM
The Republicans brought this on themselfs. Obama would propose a plan in the middle and then have to move to the right to get a deal done. The R's have taught him to make your first offer a partisan one because a middle of the road one doesn;t get a deal done.

The last fiscal cliff Obama caved on everything. All spending cuts and no revenue. We can't cut our way out of this mess and Obama is not going to just go along with the Republican plan like he did last time.

This is genuinely laughable. Obama proposes a centrist plan? Since when? 4:1 taxes to spending (if they happen) is a centrist proposal? No deal I have seen in the last decade (Bush included) resembles anything to what I would call a right-of-center solution.

BTW, you CAN cut your way out of this mess. In fact, it is the easiest and most sensible path. It'll hurt, but its necessary. Fact is you can't tax your way out. Simple math tells you that.

donkhater
12-02-2012, 11:08 AM
If republicans cave to the irresponsible leadership coming from the frat house they deserve to get clobbered.

Obama's plan fixes nothing. Nothing.

This x10

donkhater
12-02-2012, 11:12 AM
No matter what the result of this fiscal cliff, Republicans will get the blame. We've seen that play out time and again.

Go over the cliff? Republicans were obstructionists.
Go with Obama's plan and continue with trillion dollar deficits? It's still Bush's fault.

There is NO reason why Republicans shouldn't hold out for the deal they want. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't compromise, but they sure as hell should get some meaningful spending reforms in exchange for these asinine tax increase proposals.

Taco John
12-02-2012, 11:38 AM
No matter what the result of this fiscal cliff, Republicans will get the blame. We've seen that play out time and again.

Go over the cliff? Republicans were obstructionists.
Go with Obama's plan and continue with trillion dollar deficits? It's still Bush's fault.

There is NO reason why Republicans shouldn't hold out for the deal they want. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't compromise, but they sure as hell should get some meaningful spending reforms in exchange for these asinine tax increase proposals.

They'll take credit from me if they actually let it happen. The fiscal cliff is the real "grand bargain," and filled with plenty of good stuff.

donkhater
12-02-2012, 12:06 PM
They'll take credit from me if they actually let it happen. The fiscal cliff is the real "grand bargain," and filled with plenty of good stuff.

Agreed. Far from a cliff, it is a good start.

I don't much like the tax increases, because it masks the true problem which is spending, but if it pisses off the public, then maybe they'll wake up to what all this government actually costs.

Taco John
04-18-2013, 01:24 PM
More on Obama being a Lame Duck:

Barack Obama can't pass gun control despite 90 per cent support. Truly, he is a lame-duck president

Yesterday, the most modest of gun control proposals died in the Senate. It would have expanded background checks to people purchasing weapons at gun shows and online sales, enjoyed 90 per cent support among the public and came on the back of the tragedy at Newtown. Yet, despite all that it had going for it, the Toomey-Manchin bill raised just 54 votes – six short of the number necessary for passage. “This is a pretty shameful day for Washington,” said Obama afterwards. It wasn’t exactly a red letter day for him, either.

Why did the no-brainer bill fail? Four reasons:

1. It wasn’t the political priority that its supporters presumed it was. Yes, Newtown shocked the nation – but the top priority for the public remains the economy. According to Gallup, only 4 per cent of Americans think that gun control is the “most important problem facing the country today”.

2. The National Rifle Association is smarter than we all thought. In the wake of Newtown it scored a number of own goals, including a disastrous press conference and floating the idea of armed guards in schools. But Blake Zeff argues that its extremism was calculated, that its goal was to shift the gravity of debate away from the centre ground and towards the Right – compelling Democrats to talk seriously about armed guards and stop talking about banning whole classes of weapons. The NRA, even by farce, transformed the discussion to its advantage.

3. The Democrats are dumber that we all thought. Blake Zeff, again, makes a compelling case that the Dems screwed up when they declined to rally behind a more comprehensive gun control bill – conceding leadership of the debate to the Right within their party. This is a familiar story: liberals tend to be less ambitious and tenacious than their conservative rivals.

4. Barack Obama is a lame-duck president. Nobody listens to what he says anymore, nobody is interested in winning his approval and nobody much cares if he thinks they have “let the country down”. This is typical for a second-term president who has lost all their leverage because they’re no longer running for office and everybody is patiently waiting for the day when he quits the White House. But Obama's difficult personality has doubled the size of the challenge. Gloating in victory, adolescent in defeat – the Prez doesn’t make it easy to work with him. Why should conservative senators give him a legislative victory after he has spent four years painting them as knuckle-dragging rednecks who hate women and the poor?

Whatever your position on gun control, yesterday’s events are a damning indictment of Obama’s presidency – a flash of style, lots of soaring rhetoric and, when the votes are actually counted, little show for any of it. America has four more years of this lame-duck president telling them that it has let him down. If only he could tear up the Constitution and rule by diktat he might save himself a little disappointment. Alas, American democracy is a stickler for rules.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100212724/barack-obama-cant-pass-gun-control-despite-90-per-cent-support-truly-he-is-a-lame-duck-president/

BucEyedPea
04-18-2013, 01:29 PM
We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

No he isn't. He's lying using verbal sleight of hand, knowing the rabble rousing ignorant and gullible masses won't check specifics.
You fall for it every time too.

His long-delayed budget proposal is chock full of tax hikes. Many of them are camouflaged as "fees" or "rules" changes. He also chains the Consumer Price Index in a way that moves many individuals into a higher tax brackets. Wouldn't you be glad to be considered rich enough to be taxed more under this?

Middle-class taxpayers, will lose tax credits and deductions they counted on. That's a tax hike. Also, Obamacare has many more new taxes within it as well.
Unions want out of it now too.

AndChiefs
04-18-2013, 01:30 PM
4. Barack Obama is a lame-duck president. Nobody listens to what he says anymore, nobody is interested in winning his approval and nobody much cares if he thinks they have “let the country down”. This is typical for a second-term president who has lost all their leverage because they’re no longer running for office and everybody is patiently waiting for the day when he quits the White House. But Obama's difficult personality has doubled the size of the challenge. Gloating in victory, adolescent in defeat – the Prez doesn’t make it easy to work with him. Why should conservative senators give him a legislative victory after he has spent four years painting them as knuckle-dragging rednecks who hate women and the poor?


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100212724/barack-obama-cant-pass-gun-control-despite-90-per-cent-support-truly-he-is-a-lame-duck-president/

No way...he's the great uniter.

Frazod
04-18-2013, 01:33 PM
More on Obama being a Lame Duck:

Barack Obama can't pass gun control despite 90 per cent support. Truly, he is a lame-duck president

Yesterday, the most modest of gun control proposals died in the Senate. It would have expanded background checks to people purchasing weapons at gun shows and online sales, enjoyed 90 per cent support among the public and came on the back of the tragedy at Newtown. Yet, despite all that it had going for it, the Toomey-Manchin bill raised just 54 votes – six short of the number necessary for passage. “This is a pretty shameful day for Washington,” said Obama afterwards. It wasn’t exactly a red letter day for him, either.

Why did the no-brainer bill fail? Four reasons:

1. It wasn’t the political priority that its supporters presumed it was. Yes, Newtown shocked the nation – but the top priority for the public remains the economy. According to Gallup, only 4 per cent of Americans think that gun control is the “most important problem facing the country today”.

2. The National Rifle Association is smarter than we all thought. In the wake of Newtown it scored a number of own goals, including a disastrous press conference and floating the idea of armed guards in schools. But Blake Zeff argues that its extremism was calculated, that its goal was to shift the gravity of debate away from the centre ground and towards the Right – compelling Democrats to talk seriously about armed guards and stop talking about banning whole classes of weapons. The NRA, even by farce, transformed the discussion to its advantage.

3. The Democrats are dumber that we all thought. Blake Zeff, again, makes a compelling case that the Dems screwed up when they declined to rally behind a more comprehensive gun control bill – conceding leadership of the debate to the Right within their party. This is a familiar story: liberals tend to be less ambitious and tenacious than their conservative rivals.

4. Barack Obama is a lame-duck president. Nobody listens to what he says anymore, nobody is interested in winning his approval and nobody much cares if he thinks they have “let the country down”. This is typical for a second-term president who has lost all their leverage because they’re no longer running for office and everybody is patiently waiting for the day when he quits the White House. But Obama's difficult personality has doubled the size of the challenge. Gloating in victory, adolescent in defeat – the Prez doesn’t make it easy to work with him. Why should conservative senators give him a legislative victory after he has spent four years painting them as knuckle-dragging rednecks who hate women and the poor?

Whatever your position on gun control, yesterday’s events are a damning indictment of Obama’s presidency – a flash of style, lots of soaring rhetoric and, when the votes are actually counted, little show for any of it. America has four more years of this lame-duck president telling them that it has let him down. If only he could tear up the Constitution and rule by diktat he might save himself a little disappointment. Alas, American democracy is a stickler for rules.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100212724/barack-obama-cant-pass-gun-control-despite-90-per-cent-support-truly-he-is-a-lame-duck-president/

Nearly brought a tear to my eye. LMAO

BucEyedPea
04-18-2013, 01:36 PM
Nearly brought a tear to my eye. LMAO

LMAO Well I certainly hope it all plays out that way. Nothing better than gridlock these days between the two parties imo.

Frazod
04-18-2013, 01:43 PM
"Gloating in victory, adolescent in defeat" - these six words perfectly and completely capture the essence of this fucking scumbag.

DJ's left nut
04-18-2013, 01:47 PM
"Gloating in victory, adolescent in defeat" is perhaps the most apt description of this President I've ever seen.

EDIT: What Frazod said.

It's an incredible turn of phrase that just perfectly encapsulates what an amazing failure this man has been as a leader.

Frazod
04-18-2013, 02:15 PM
Time for another taxpayer-funded boondoggle to Hawaii, I'll bet.

notorious
04-18-2013, 02:22 PM
Time for another taxpayer-funded boondoggle to Hawaii, I'll bet.

When depressed, some people eat, others drinks.


Than there are the select few that go on multi-million dollar vacations as often as we go to the grocery store.