President Obama's Congressional Republican Townhall Meeting

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That's why you don't shower...

Proved my point very nicely Cap'n. But then you do so on a daily basis. You just can't help yourself, it's your nature.

 

[RightField]

This passage was really good (from AJ), it got to the heart of the matter:

"Earth to Barack Obama: It isn't the Republicans on Capitol Hill that have blocked your attempts to put America on the path towards government-run health care. It was the American people -- the same people that punished your party in 1994 when they tried to pull this stunt the last time. And it wasn't because they were told that it was "some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of [their] lives," or that "this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America." They figured that stuff out on their own."

- Andy Wickersham

Add to it that note posted above where Obama admits that someone, somehow snuck provisions into the bill that would indeed make his statement "No one who doesn't want to lose their current heatlh insurance and Doctor if they don't want to" untrue. They don't know what they're doing other than harping at the American people for not embracing their enlightened benevolent edicts. The king has no clothes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ask and ye shall receive, I suppose....

Prepare for some real vile and invective now...

Thanks AJ. That's a good story.

Here's a little more info that's not exactly what I said, but lends some credibility to it:

He said in his address that the bill would "preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan" - even though the Congressional Budget Office says millions will lose their current employer-provided coverage. He said it would reduce premiums for millions - when it will increase premiums for millions of others. He maintained that the CBO estimates it will reduce the deficit by "as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades" - but even the CBO considers the assumptions behind that estimate flimsy.

- Rich Lowery (Jan 30, 2010).

Thank you, gentlemen. I was looking for something a bit more substantive than cherry-picked commentary from "Hot Air exclusives" and hyperpartisans like Rich Lowery, but I suppose that's my fault for not specifying this up front. My oversight, of course, now gives you free reign to criticize me for "shooting the messenger", which I have no doubt you will do in earnest. Enjoy your "victory", guys!

Throb is going to NOT read this and attack me, my family, and the source, because he's right all the time and everyone else lies.

I have some sympathy for you, my friend. I realize you're in basically an untenable position, as the absence of true moments of outrage against the Obama administration, you are forced to gin up controversy (which some wags have begun calling "nontroversy") in order to justify your dyspeptic high dudgeon. It can't be easy to be you.

 

[RightField]

Thank you, gentlemen. I was looking for something a bit more substantive than cherry-picked commentary from "Hot Air exclusives" and hyperpartisans like Rich Lowery, but I suppose that's my fault for not specifying this up front. My oversight, of course, now gives you free reign to criticize me for "shooting the messenger", which I have no doubt you will do in earnest. Enjoy your "victory", guys!

I have some sympathy for you, my friend. I realize you're in basically an untenable position, as the absence of true moments of outrage against the Obama administration, you are forced to gin up controversy (which some wags have begun calling "nontroversy") in order to justify your dyspeptic high dudgeon. It can't be easy to be you.

I guess that means we're free to ignore the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the LA Times and anyone associated with them because they're "hyperpartisan"? lol... I'll still read them though, I like to understand all perspectives.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Oh yeah, about that....

You changed my name to "LTG Herpes", not a flattering moniker for those who are trying to be friendly and respectful of others and their opinions.

Well, I suppose I should explain about that...
I have a nifty Firefox enhancement called FoxReplace that does automatic phrase substitution. Vetteman becomes Vettebigot, Frisco becomes Dances With Falsehoods, Miles becomes Slime, etc, etc. It saves me a lot of typing.

I've had it turned on for so long that truthfully I don't even notice it anymore. Think of them as terms of endearment for my friends on the right here.

It's nothing personal

 

[RobDownSouth]

I guess that means we're free to ignore the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the LA Times and anyone associated with them because they're "hyperpartisan"? lol... I'll still read them though, I like to understand all perspectives.

That's "False Equivalency", of course.

News is news and commentary is commentary, and never the twain shall meet...

....except on Fox, of course.

 

[RightField]

Here, I found something interesting from the LA Times opinion pages:

When Obama met with House Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore on Friday, the change was apparent. Though he made a polite bow toward what he called "the value of a loyal opposition," he quickly moved on to accusing his hosts, on camera, of indulging in "the politics of no."

This is not a good way to start on the goal of bipartisanship. The thing is, that most of the people in the country don't want cap-n-trade nor the very confusing healthcare reform bill as it stands now and so the Republicans are justified in standing with the American people to say "no" to these programs. Was his proclamation of a new spirit of bipartisanship just a political ploy to gain sympathy with the American people or was he earnest in his statement. Just judging from his speech the following day, where he made accusations of in indulging in the "politics of no" instead of listening and considering that his opponents might actually have a valid position on some of these issues makes one believe it was merely more political postering and subterfuge...something not new to the Chicago school of politics.

Obama admitted yesterday that he didn't even know what was in the healthcare bill and yet he was railing on the Republicans for the last two days for not enthusiastically supporting it? (See quotes from Obama above). WTF? Is this just a statement of "Buy what I'm selling whatever it is or I'm going to pillory you!" or "How dare you resist my imperial edicts now matter how crazy they are (Ludwig/Obama)"

The other programs like the pork laden stimulus bill, which I still maintain was a payback to liberal constituencies for support during the election (public unions and private unions) was not a good idea either. The inevitable result was that it didn't stimulate anything. There's still a big block of stimulus money unspent, but that money was reserved for a year after the bill passed to give the economy a little spurt just before the mid-term elections (which is really an underhanded way....if we needed stimulus last year during the depth of the recession...why did they not spend all the money then and instead PLAN to release it in support of their relection bids). It's all about politics to them, not governance and Republicans are right to stand against them until bills and programs are reshaped to do what they were designed to do in the spirit of good governance.

 

[tinylittlegnat]

Ok, well then, why is it ok for Obama to break his promise?

Broken promises???

From politifact.com

Tracking Obama’s promises
91 Promise Kept
33 Compromise
15 Promise Broken
87 Stalled
275 In the Works
2 Not yet rated

Look at all those broken promises.

 

[RightField]

Broken promises???

From politifact.com

Tracking Obama’s promises
91 Promise Kept
33 Compromise
15 Promise Broken
87 Stalled
275 In the Works
2 Not yet rated

Look at all those broken promises.

Promise kept: He got a dog for his daughters
Promise broken: Transparency in Government

Promise kept: Hire Rahm Emmanual as his Chief of Staff
Promise Broken: Provide honest-to-goodness nonpartisan-based stimulus

Promise compromised: Don't hire lobbiests (hired tax cheat to run treasury)

I love this game! Can we play some more?

 

[tinylittlegnat]

Promise kept: He got a dog for his daughters
Promise broken: Transparency in Government

Promise kept: Hire Rahm Emmanual as his Chief of Staff
Promise Broken: Provide honest-to-goodness nonpartisan-based stimulus

Promise compromised: Don't hire lobbiests (hired tax cheat to run treasury)

I love this game! Can we play some more?

Yeah your really up on the news aint ya. Here is a sampling of broken and kept.

Broken
No. 24: End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
No. 30: End no-bid contracts above $25,000
No. 86: Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives
No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

Promises Kept
No. 6: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch


No where on either list do I see anythingabout a pet dog

 

[RightField]

Where's the one about "bring a new spirit of cooperation and establish a new era of post-partisanship" (while hurling invective at the opposition for standing with the American people against the effort to re-implement the 30 year wish list of failed programs of the liberal left leading to massive debt and economic malaise).

There's more if you want to play.

 

[phrodeau]

Yeah your really up on the news aint ya. Here is a sampling of broken and kept.

Broken
No. 24: End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
No. 30: End no-bid contracts above $25,000
No. 86: Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives
No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

Promises Kept
No. 6: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch


No where on either list do I see anythingabout a pet dog

It's Promise #502.

 

[Liar]

Where's the one about "bring a new spirit of cooperation and establish a new era of post-partisanship" (while hurling invective at the opposition for standing with the American people against the effort to re-implement the 30 year wish list of failed programs of the liberal left leading to massive debt and economic malaise).

There's more if you want to play.

I call that a force majeure failure.

It's impossible to achieve when faced with an opposition hell-bent from day one on any and all legal and rhetorical opposition and obstruction, aimed at your political destruction, no matter the cost.

Still, a failure it is. It's stupid to promise something that is out of your hands.

 

[RightField]

I call that a force majeure failure.

It's impossible to achieve when faced with an opposition hell-bent from day one on any and all legal and rhetorical opposition and obstruction, aimed at your political destruction, no matter the cost.

Still, a failure it is. It's stupid to promise something that is out of your hands.

If he'd objectively look at the problems and cooperatively looked for solutions, he'd have a lot of people willing to work with him, but with comments like "We won" while slamming the door the face of Republicans while stepping into private sessions to discuss and debate the healthcare program in the early days of his administration, he pretty much set the tone going forward.

 

[Liar]

If he'd objectively look at the problems and cooperatively looked for solutions, he'd have a lot of people willing to work with him, but with comments like "We won" while slamming the door the face of Republicans while stepping into private sessions to discuss and debate the healthcare program in the early days of his administration, he pretty much set the tone going forward.

So you say.

Others say he extended more hands across the isle than anyone before him, only to be met with a brick wall, and met with rhetoric like "Obama must acknowledge that America is a center-right country" (when America just elected a center-left President, House and Senate), and "OMFG he's not being Bi-parisan!" when he didn't immediately adopt every Conservative idea and proposition wihtout question and at the expense of every progressive idea and proposition. That's why he felt compelled to remind them that, um, he won, and that being bi-partisan doesn't mean the minority party always get their way.

I guess it's a matter of "your shit stinks, mine smells like roses", on both sides of the fence.

Truth is most likely a bit of both.

 

[RightField]

So you say.

Others say he extended more hands across the isle than anyone before him, only to be met with a brick wall, and met with rhetoric like "Obama must acknowledge that America is a center-right country" (when America just elected a center-left President, House and Senate), and "OMFG he's not being Bi-parisan!" when he didn't immediately adopt every Conservative idea and proposition wihtout question and at the expense of every progressive idea and proposition. That's why he felt compelled to remind them that, um, he won, and that being bi-partisan doesn't mean the minority party always get their way.

I guess it's a matter of "your shit stinks, mine smells like roses", on both sides of the fence.

Truth is most likely a bit of both.

One example...doing things like dismantling GM and then taking away the rights of the bondholders in a way that goes against the "contracts" and legal rights of the bondholders through 125 years of settled bankruptcy law only to give the remaining assets to the UAW when the UAW didn't have any standing in the law shows a ruthless disregard for the law and a depth of cronyism never before seen in this country. You want the Republicans to stand and cheer for this?

You think that the Republicans should have gone along with Capntrade which seemed a little hokie from the begining and is starting to look a lot more hokie now that reports of fraud in the development of the numbers that support the "compelling argument"? You ready to cough up another $2000 per year to give to the government so they can feed it to Al Gore who wouldn't know a fact if it hit him in the face?

I think he's doing like Lucy and Linus in the comic strip peanuts. He talks about reconcilation, offers to hold the football for Linus and then jerks it away at the last moment (yet again) and then laughs. He's done it time and time again. I think he's reaching out because the polls tell him he should, but without any intention of making any real effort...just window dressing. He's got no intention of working with them in the least and no intention of making concessions to his big-government should-control-everything philosophy. His speech to the retreat was the same way..."We should work togehter, even though you caused this partisan problem by refusing to meakly submit to my evil plans to take over the world"..(I'm exagerating a little...but he offered a hand and a smile while saying "you're a worthless piece of shit and caused all the problems but you really should suck up to me because I'm Obama"). Maybe he was just reprising his world apology tour and not meaning a word of what he said.

His whole life is a history of sucking at the government teat and thinks that if he just makes the teat bigger, more people will benefit like he did. He's growing the teat based on spending our children's future and putting us in great debt and jeopoardizing our future...but he seems to have no insight into those worries (but much of the public does).

 

[MeeMie]

The architect tells it like it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsJVRaHB8MY&feature=player_embedded

Watch it and stuff that up your kazoo.

 

[cebalrai]

This is a blog from a right-wing spin doctor. It's like of someone here posted a Mochael Moore article about Bush and asked people to take it as truth.

Next time, don't just say "Tom Bevan". Tell us what he really is.

Doh!

Obama's Stunning Admission
Posted by Tom Bevan

There's been a remarkable amount of coverage of President Obama's appearance at the House Republican retreat today, but I haven't seen anyone focus on the President's rather stunning admission about the Democrats' health care legislation (Video):

"The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. "[emphasis added]


If we take this statement at face value, President Obama is admitting the the health care bills passed by either the House or Senate (or both) contained provisions which were "snuck in" - presumably by Democratic members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists - that would have in fact prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want.

This was one of the core debates on health care throughout last year: Would President Obama and the Democrats' legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn't. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care - the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today.

So it's a bit of shock to find out now - from the President himself, no less - that one or both of the bills that passed Congress late last year (the House passed its version in late November, the Senate on Christmas Eve Day) contained language that would have violated this pledge.

 

[cebalrai]

. You got independents to lean towards Obama in 2008, mostly through a major liberal and press effort to distort the truth and blame Bush for every ill in the world including the real estate bubble that was mostly due to liberal policies.

Oh so independents broke towards Obama just because of the press. CLASSIC Rush Limbaugh sound byte. Blame the media over and over again. No matter what, do NOT admit that A) a democrat was ever a good candidate, or B) That the Bush administration and congressional republicans ever have a significant enough flaw to be voted out in favor of a dem.

 

[cebalrai]

If he'd objectively look at the problems and cooperatively looked for solutions, he'd have a lot of people willing to work with him, but with comments like "We won" while slamming the door the face of Republicans while stepping into private sessions to discuss and debate the healthcare program in the early days of his administration, he pretty much set the tone going forward.

Yet the Dems have made multiple concessions on healthcare in order to get more people on board and it's now in a much, much more diluted form than when it began. Meanwhile, the Republicans have shown no tangible willingness to compromise and have decided that it's now going to take 60 votes to get anything done in the legislature.

Repubs are saying that Dems need to reach across the aisle and that Obama "needs to move towards the middle". But then Republicans don't reach across the aisle for a compromise "because they stick to their values"...

And now we have the chair of the RNC, Michael Steele, saying that Republicans need to pass a "floor test" on a range if issues or they can't run as a party member. They're calling out their moderates who do actually reach across the aisle from time to time, and are threatening to take them out in their election/re-election primaries.

So it boils down to the Republican party saying that A) Dems need to move to the right and be more like Republicans, and B) any Republican that acts moderately and works with the Dems is going to get targeted by their own party.

 

[Liar]

One example...doing things like dismantling GM and then taking away the rights of the bondholders in a way that goes against the "contracts" and legal rights of the bondholders through 125 years of settled bankruptcy law only to give the remaining assets to the UAW when the UAW didn't have any standing in the law shows a ruthless disregard for the law and a depth of cronyism never before seen in this country. You want the Republicans to stand and cheer for this?

You think that the Republicans should have gone along with Capntrade which seemed a little hokie from the begining and is starting to look a lot more hokie now that reports of fraud in the development of the numbers that support the "compelling argument"? You ready to cough up another $2000 per year to give to the government so they can feed it to Al Gore who wouldn't know a fact if it hit him in the face?

I think he's doing like Lucy and Linus in the comic strip peanuts. He talks about reconcilation, offers to hold the football for Linus and then jerks it away at the last moment (yet again) and then laughs. He's done it time and time again. I think he's reaching out because the polls tell him he should, but without any intention of making any real effort...just window dressing. He's got no intention of working with them in the least and no intention of making concessions to his big-government should-control-everything philosophy. His speech to the retreat was the same way..."We should work togehter, even though you caused this partisan problem by refusing to meakly submit to my evil plans to take over the world"..(I'm exagerating a little...but he offered a hand and a smile while saying "you're a worthless piece of shit and caused all the problems but you really should suck up to me because I'm Obama"). Maybe he was just reprising his world apology tour and not meaning a word of what he said.

His whole life is a history of sucking at the government teat and thinks that if he just makes the teat bigger, more people will benefit like he did. He's growing the teat based on spending our children's future and putting us in great debt and jeopoardizing our future...but he seems to have no insight into those worries (but much of the public does).

Dude, I'm not trying to convince you that Obama is right and you're wrong. That would be futile. You are as far down the "my shit smells like roses" trail as anyone here.

I'm just laying out the way that the left side of the spectrum is thinking, and honestly believe te situation and the political history of this year to be (true or not, that's another issue).

They see an opposition with maximum obstructionism on the agenda from day one, with no respect for the office of the President or the expressed will of the People in the 08 election, a through-the-roof record breaking number of procedural delays and filibusters in the Senate, a rhetoric bordering on fringe punditry, and cries of "radical partisan powergrab!!!" every time a conservative proposition is not accepted unanimously.

Are they right? I'm not saying. I believe they are somewhat right, and that several times Obama have extended a hand, he have had said hand shat upon. Other times he has not reached out when he could and maybe should.

But that is what they percieve, and are genuine in believing. Just like you are genuine in your perspective. Unless both sides are willing to acknowledge that, the childish hate-fest will no doubt continue.