Clinton: Wow

[T-post Tom]

Amazing speech. Party wonks & haters can't deny the man's genius. Clinton might be the one man GOPs fear more than Grover Norquist when it comes to elections.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

So the '81-82 recession, which started 6 months into the Reagan administration, was Carter's fault? Or the 2001 recession, which begin under W's watch. Might as well blame Clinton for 9/11 while you're at it.

Republicans actually do do that.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Well, Harding was as corrupt as the day is long, Andrew Johnson was a barely-literate punching bag of the bloodthirsty post-war northern Congress bent on revenge, Buchanan's inactions did more to hand us the Civil War than any other, and Pierce's son died gruesomely in front of him just before inauguration, so he crawled into a bottle and spent his entire administration there. I'm no fan of Bush, but due to these four, he'll never be worse than number five on the Awful Presidents list.

Fair enough.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

That is something that makes my head hurt. Which is worse, Gridlock with Obama or Mitt with a more cooperative congress doing their best to help us?

If this is what helping us looks like...

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Why didn't we have this terrible issue prior to 9/2008?

Because the recession changed the economy.

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Anyway, I guess Obama's people were way off when they said the stimulus that wasn't as shovel ready as Obama thought would keep unemployment under 8.0%.

They were, because those projections were made before he was sworn in after the 2008 election, and based on 3% loss of GDP, which most folks assumed at the time was happening.

Later, we'd find out we were actually losing 9%.

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Not as fast as Obama's does.

Link please.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I just watched his speech in it's entirety. He is the most dynamic speaker I've ever seen. Knowing full well that the top 1% in the World are the ones who are really in control of our government, I would still vote for this guy right now to lead our country. As it stands, I'm having a hard time voting for either one of the guys who are running right now.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Yes.

And I would have voted for him.

I'm sure you were.

It's amazing -- you are at your most moderate when the situation is at its most hypothetical.

Assuming you're old enough, you probably hated Clinton at the time and thought he was trying to destroy America, much like you think Obama is now.

You look back now, far removed from those hyperbolic emotions, and you're like "you know... Clinton wasn't that bad. He was a liberal we conservatives could talk to, unlike this dickbag."

History's repeating itself. You have a liberal in office with a proven track record of cooperation and willingness to accept ideas from both sides of the aisle, a centrist presidency that, once again, the GOP has successfully convinced itself is trying to destroy America with socialist policies (el oh el).

If Obama wins reelection, and the unemployment numbers fall like they're supposed to in 2014, you'll look back on his Presidency in 2024 when you're hating on some new Democratic President that you're certain is trying to destroy America and you're going to say "that Obama... he wasn't so bad. He was a liberal we conservatives could talk to, unlike this dickbag."

Break the cycle, RINGLEADER. Break the cycle.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well, that's just plain stupid.

If the people of the this country elects a POTUS and one political party absolutely REFUSES to compromise in order to better this country, those involved, whether R or D, should be thrown out on their asses.

We did, they did, they weren't. Whether we like it or not this is the reality. Nobody will work with obama. He has to go.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Republicans actually do do that.

You mean the offer of bin Laden which Clinton didn't take?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm sure you were.

It's amazing -- you are at your most moderate when the situation is at its most hypothetical.

Assuming you're old enough, you probably hated Clinton at the time and thought he was trying to destroy America, much like you think Obama is now.

You look back now, far removed from those hyperbolic emotions, and you're like "you know... Clinton wasn't that bad. He was a liberal we conservatives could talk to, unlike this dickbag."

History's repeating itself. You have a liberal in office with a proven track record of cooperation and willingness to accept ideas from both sides of the aisle, a centrist presidency that, once again, the GOP has successfully convinced itself is trying to destroy America with socialist policies (el oh el).

If Obama wins reelection, and the unemployment numbers fall like they're supposed to in 2014, you'll look back on his Presidency in 2024 when you're hating on some new Democratic President that you're certain is trying to destroy America and you're going to say "that Obama... he wasn't so bad. He was a liberal we conservatives could talk to, unlike this dickbag."

Break the cycle, RINGLEADER. Break the cycle.

Centrist president.

You don't REALLY believe that, do you?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Donger

Centrist president.

You don't REALLY believe that, do you?

Centrist in the same way cosmo-nut is middle of the road.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm sure you were.

It's amazing -- you are at your most moderate when the situation is at its most hypothetical.

Assuming you're old enough, you probably hated Clinton at the time and thought he was trying to destroy America, much like you think Obama is now.

You look back now, far removed from those hyperbolic emotions, and you're like "you know... Clinton wasn't that bad. He was a liberal we conservatives could talk to, unlike this dickbag."

History's repeating itself. You have a liberal in office with a proven track record of cooperation and willingness to accept ideas from both sides of the aisle, a centrist presidency that, once again, the GOP has successfully convinced itself is trying to destroy America with socialist policies (el oh el).

If Obama wins reelection, and the unemployment numbers fall like they're supposed to in 2014, you'll look back on his Presidency in 2024 when you're hating on some new Democratic President that you're certain is trying to destroy America and you're going to say "that Obama... he wasn't so bad. He was a liberal we conservatives could talk to, unlike this dickbag."

Break the cycle, RINGLEADER. Break the cycle.

Yeah good old Willie! Other than being a serial rapist he was a great guy. The good old days. Heck back then if you were caught having an affair with a homely, overweight half wit you could just bomb a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, or some "training camps" in Afghanistan and if necessary good Iraq to distract the public~

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Donger

Centrist president.

You don't REALLY believe that, do you?

I wouldn't say he was a centrist but I would say he is center-left.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I wouldn't say he was a centrist but I would say he is center-left.

Of American politics?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Donger

With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying.

That seems to be in keeping with other quotes I've seen on Rahm.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Donger

Of American politics?