Obama '08?

'Tis true, though there are many who are to my left.

Cycloptichorn

I'm thinking it's a tie between those two.

Gee. A complement for Cyclo from Okie. Will wonders never cease.

Some complement.

Here is Obama taking on the party of "no."


Obama takes on the party of "no." His statements are unassailable.


The Backward PartyThe president offers an extended critique of Republicans.
By John DickersonPosted Wednesday, June 2, 2010, at 6:55 PM ET
The Obama Partisanship Meter took another small jump today. When last we checked the needle, President Obama had tweaked Republicans at a Democratic fundraiser, using pointed language to blame them for doing nothing to help improve the economy. It was an escalation in his rhetoric, but it was delivered to a partisan crowd. Today, in a noncampaign event, Obama made his critique more explicit.

The Democratic National Committee will be relying this fall on the president to sell the economic recovery and define the opposition. In Pittsburgh Wednesday, Obama did both.

He didn't simply criticize Republicans. He implicated them in a unified and multifaceted narrative of blame. After explaining how his administration had reacted to the financial crisis, Obama told of how the opposition hadn't been much help. His opponents, he said, were playing politics. "Before I was even inaugurated, the congressional leaders of the other party got together and made a calculation that if I failed, they'd win," he said. The president then turned to the merits of their argument. "To be fair," he started, as if to suggest he might be, "a good deal of the other party's opposition to our agenda has been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about the role of government."

Noncraven Republicans who did not attend the pre-inauguration "Obama Must Fail" meeting might have thought he was going to assign them to a more benevolent category. They were soon disappointed. The president went on to define what Republican beliefs entailed: "It's an agenda that basically offers two answers to every problem we face: more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations." The president left out their plan to punish the elderly and infirm just for sport. (For those interested in a more thoughtful speech, and a more generous interpretation of conservatism, read the president's remarks recently at the University of Michigan commencement.)
Though the speech was billed as a talk on the economy, it had all the hallmarks of a campaign speech, including the whiff of focus-group-tested phrases. "They want to go back. We want to go forward," said the president. It was a mantra repeated throughout his remarks. The goal, as Democrats have been saying for months, is to make the November elections a choice between alternatives, not a referendum on the Democrats.

The underlying theme of the speech was a defense of government. "It's our job as a nation to advocate on behalf of the America that we hope for," he said, arguing that only an activist government could provide a minimum safety net and give opportunity to poor students, innovative research, and businesses that invest in cleaner energy technologies.

As he reached the end of his remarks, Obama got specific about pending legislation, making his strongest pitch yet for the Senate climate change legislation. "The time has come to aggressively accelerate" the effort to put a price on carbon pollution, he said, before making a commitment: "The votes might not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months." This is a different level of motivation than he demonstrated on immigration reform. On that topic, Obama said there was only so much he could do to push legislation because Republicans would not give him the votes.

The Gulf disaster provides all the motivation necessary for Obama to strongly support the legislation. But there's also a political benefit. With so few ways to show that he is in command of the spill and its cleanup, the legislation also provides the president with another opportunity to take command. He can show that he is fighting to protect the country from being in such a vulnerable position in the future. Republicans will no doubt react to this speech by giving him lots of opportunities to fight.

-- Slate

You Obamabots sure are confused...

The arrogant Obama is the top dog in the party of "no."

And when I say the arrogant Obama is the top dog in the party
of "no" I am referring to no positive changes for the better - none.

None of his policies are, in fact, disastrous.

And in case you haven't noticed, Obama has been taking the Republicans on - and winning.

Cycloptichorn

Its on record now, even cyclops admits Obama is more radical than he is! Not lookin good for Obama, folks! Among the many beliefs of cyclops is the belief that a human is no more valuable than a rat or a worm, and that Karl Marx has some great ideas that we should use. Well, at least cyclops admits his radicalism, while Obama does not, but isn't this instructive folks?

What policy has not been disastrous, cyclops?


If the Republicans lose, they deserve to lose, bring it on. If we can't beat an absolute loser, Obama, then we need help. But as has been said, the media is worth 15 points, so Obama has a handicap built into his game from the start, as all of the Obamabots in the media will support him regardless of what a bombout failure he is as president.

None of his policies have been disastrous. Why don't you name a single one, and tell us exactly how it has been disastrous? Please be specific as to the ACTUAL disasters that have occurred - I am not interested in your projections, because they have not always been found to be based on logic, but more on your ideology.



He already beat your best once and he has been kicking the Republicans up and down ever since then. So yeah - you need help.



As has been said by Republicans who can't understand why they aren't winning, so they accuse the refs of being rigged.



The media isn't especially supportive of Obama these days, or haven't you noticed?

Cycloptichorn

I missed that. Who came up with that estimate? Just curious where that statistic came from.

Stimulus=> expanded deficit!
TARP continuation=> expanded deficit!
Health care=> expanded deficit and health care costs!
Fan&Fred=> expanded deficit!
Expanded deficit=> expanded misallocation of money from productive investments to non-productive investments!
Misallocation of money=> reduced jobs and job growth.
...

I've noticed!

What will it take for you to wise up as well?

rjb, I'm not sure who first came up with the number, all I can say is I recall it being talked about. I did a search and one of the people making that estimate was Evan Thomas of Newsweek when he said this: "Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. . . . They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them . . . that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005571

Nobody knows for sure how many points big media can influence voters and sway an election, rjb. I have two thoughts about it, one being that I think there should be little doubt that it is worth a few points, and 15 points is not an unreasonable estimate, and secondly it probably varies from one election to another and depends upon the candidates and how much the media is in the tank for a candidate. The 15 points can result by negative reporting of one candidate subtracting 7 1/2 points and positive reporting of the other candidate adding 7 1/2 points, but the negative / positive mix of reporting can vary to bring about the result the media desires. In the last presidential election, I think the big media was pushing Obama big time, and I also think the only reason Obama even became a candidate in the first place is because the media endorsed him and trumped him up as a great orator and all of that after he gave that speech at the DNC during the previous presidential campaign.

The problem is that okie either doesn't realize he is playing by himself or else he is the most disingenuous person on the planet.

Sorry, but there is little heat and certainly no light from you. Why should he post anything to you so that you can misinterpret it? You lack sincerity.

CAn you go . . . let's make it a real challenge . . . 7 days without mentioning Marxism or Communism? Since you have no idea what they are, we are all tired of your posts.

Hey, while you are in the cut and paste mood, how about S. Robert Lichter again, especially as interpreted by ann coulter?

Jimmy Carter + Rod Blagojevich = Barack Obama