The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

No, corruption is judged on who commits it.

Exactly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Go to any liberal site and run a search on Blackwater and then one on ACORN. Tell me what you find.

What's your point? Are we only considering corruption now based on who exposes it? Your dodge of my question is very telling.

No, they are just as wrong. Partisians are the bane of our political system. I'm just pointing out that one is really bad while the other is rather minor. If your boat is taking on water, you don't plug the smallest holes first.

As I've written throughout the thread ACORN has no business getting funded not only for this but also because I don't think our tax dollars should be funding groups like that in the first place.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, they are just as wrong. Partisians are the bane of our political system. I'm just pointing out that one is really bad while the other is rather minor.

How about we deal with all of them that are known. If one is so minor while the other is outrageous, why haven't the majority Democrats called for a vote on pulling Blackwater funding? There's more than enough votes if it truly is a partisan situation. How did the Republicans so easily persuade everyone on the Democrat side to pull the ACORN funding? I'm tired of excuses. If the issues are so well known with Blackwater (which I believe they are), why the hell aren't they pulling funding? Time to stop whining and time to start putting the rubber to the road.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

How about we deal with all of them that are known. If one is so minor while the other is outrageous, why haven't the majority Democrats called for a vote on pulling Blackwater funding? There's more than enough votes if it truly is a partisan situation. How did the Republicans so easily persuade everyone on the Democrat side to pull the ACORN funding? I'm tired of excuses. If the issues are so well known with Blackwater (which I believe they are), why the hell aren't they pulling funding? Time to stop whining and time to start putting the rubber to the road.

They aren't pulling funding because they are heavily tied into our government. Our politicians have been bought and paid for by them. Not to mention a lot of the stuff they've done looks poorly on our country and could impact our troops overseas.

Plus it involves military actions which all the couch potato warriors get up in arms about pulling any funding for.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Your dodge of my question is very telling.

bwahhahahahaha pot

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They aren't pulling funding because they are heavily tied into our government. Our politicians have been bought and paid for by them. Not to mention a lot of the stuff they've done looks poorly on our country and could impact our troops overseas.

Plus it involves military actions which all the couch potato warriors get up in arms about pulling any funding for.

But if it's an important issue it should be addressed. Are we going to worry about being reelected or doing the right thing?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting conversation in Congress right now. Pelosi and Obama have both mentioned using leftover TARP money to fund other projects. Only one problem.......the TARP bill specifically states that any leftover money MUST go to pay down the national debt. From Congressman Pence's speech on the floor:

The TARP legislation actually rightly demanded that any money not used to purchase toxic assets in the bill be used to pay down the national debt. The legislation specifically says that any leftover TARP money goes to deficit reduction. That's why I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, I was astonished when I heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week suggest that her source to pay for a new so-called stimulus bill would be leftover TARP funding. And if press reports are true, the President of the United States will address the Brookings Institute this morning and suggest the same. Let me be clear on this point. To use money from the TARP fund in the manner that is being discussed by the White House and Congressional Democrats would be a violation of the law, and it would betray the trust of the American people.

I think this would be a great disclaimer to put in spending measures moving forward. It allows the money to go towards what it was intended for, while returning any leftover money to pay down debt rather than just shovel it off to another project. If you want the new project, pass another bill stating the specific need and put similar wording in that bill. It's an easy way to add some level of responsibility to all these spending bills.

[JPhillips]

Pence has a history of being wrong on everything, so I'd want to see the language of the bill before I trust his interpretation.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting conversation in Congress right now. Pelosi and Obama have both mentioned using leftover TARP money to fund other projects. Only one problem.......the TARP bill specifically states that any leftover money MUST go to pay down the national debt. From Congressman Pence's speech on the floor:



I think this would be a great disclaimer to put in spending measures moving forward. It allows the money to go towards what it was intended for, while returning any leftover money to pay down debt rather than just shovel it off to another project. If you want the new project, pass another bill stating the specific need and put similar wording in that bill. It's an easy way to add some level of responsibility to all these spending bills.

Any link to the bill where it states what you put out there?

a quick look before work finds this but Ill look more at work:

(b) EXTENSION UPON CERTIFICATION.—The Secretary, upon
submission of a written certification to Congress, may extend the
authority provided under this Act to expire not later than 2 years
from the date of enactment of this Act. Such certification shall
include a justification of why the extension is necessary to assist
American families and stabilize financial markets, as well as the
expected cost to the taxpayers for such an extension.

interesting section here that is OT but still interesting that the Pres. has the authority to 'even up' TARP from the financial industry:

SEC. 134. RECOUPMENT.
Upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning upon the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, shall submit a report to the Congress
on the net amount within the Troubled Asset Relief Program under
this Act. In any case where there is a shortfall, the President
shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial
industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that
the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit
or national debt.

[Flasch186]

Interesting Conversation happening...out there. Seems the banks are shouldering the blame for the failure of the loan modification program. Calls are growing louder for the administration to take a tougher stand against them. Ahem cough

wow, that's easier to do than I thought. No wonder the spinmeister has such an easy time with lead ins like that.

Only 10,000 permanent loan modifications so far - Yahoo! Finance

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But if it's an important issue it should be addressed. Are we going to worry about being reelected or doing the right thing?

Politicians on both sides don't care about doing the right thing. They would slit our throats for an extra vote.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Politicians on both sides don't care about doing the right thing. They would slit our throats for an extra vote.

Republicans are being way to nice these days...

[Flasch186]

oh, BTW, Im sure Fox News gets a pass for the Daily Show's exposure of their poll that added up to 120%. Like the misspliced rally footage.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

oh, BTW, Im sure Fox News gets a pass for the Daily Show's exposure of their poll that added up to 120%. Like the misspliced rally footage.

linky? i wanna see and laugh

[cartman]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

linky? i wanna see and laugh

Look at the last video in the Daily Show thread

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah i just noticed that.

Andrew Sorkin, author of "Too Big to Fail" on Daily Show tonight. I hope Stewart has a good interview with him...the book was great.

[sterlingice]

So I'm a little sketchy on my Schoolhouse Rock, but could we just be setting up for this with health care? (Tho there are murmors that this bill may go straight to the House for a vote)

-Compromise bill leaves Senate, fillibuster broken and passed in its current state with the Medicare/Medicaid expansion and the public option killed
-Conference Committee is stacked with Dems so it's pretty easy to get Sens Rockefeller and Sanders to agree with, say Russ Feingold to craft a bill a lot like the House's as a compromise but kicking the Stupak amendment, reinstating the public option from the House bill, keeping the Medicaid and Medicare additions (or maybe dropping them), and then sending it for a vote.
-The House should be able to easily get that passed while the Senate still can get 50 votes instead of 60 so Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, et al, can go sit on their thumbs and watch it pass them by.

And, more importantly, why doesn't this happen more often? I must be missing something procedural

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So I'm a little sketchy on my Schoolhouse Rock, but could we just be setting up for this with health care? (Tho there are murmors that this bill may go straight to the House for a vote)

-Compromise bill leaves Senate, fillibuster broken and passed in its current state with the Medicare/Medicaid expansion and the public option killed
-Conference Committee is stacked with Dems so it's pretty easy to get Sens Rockefeller and Sanders to agree with, say Russ Feingold to craft a bill a lot like the House's as a compromise but kicking the Stupak amendment, reinstating the public option from the House bill, keeping the Medicaid and Medicare additions (or maybe dropping them), and then sending it for a vote.
-The House should be able to easily get that passed while the Senate still can get 50 votes instead of 60 so Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, et al, can go sit on their thumbs and watch it pass them by.

And, more importantly, why doesn't this happen more often? I must be missing something procedural

SI

My understanding is that reconciliation still can be filibustered.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yup, reconciliation can still be filibustered. The other idea being tossed around is sending the Senate bill straight to the House to be voted on, thus avoiding reconciliation and another vote. That would have it's positives (the Stupak Amendment dies) and it's negatives (no public option, state-based exchanges, etc.)

BOOOOOOOO

state-based exchanges are a fucking joke. a national-exchange would be the only type of exchange with enough fucking bargining power

[SFL Cat]

Wow...nice to see some things never change around here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

While reading the standard wire service version of the "Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize" I noticed something odd at the end. Or at least it struck me a little odd.

In the evening, Obama is expected to wave to a torchlight procession from his hotel balcony and stroll with Norwegian royalty to a dinner banquet. He will offer comments a second time there and cap his brisk jaunt to Europe.

It's the part about waving from the balcony that caught my eye. That just seemed like an odd note to include, from a safety/security standpoint.
I mean it just sounded like a "okay protestors, we'll give you a target in the open for a few minutes tonight, just thought you'd like a heads up".
Yeah, I know, there's security everywhere etc etc etc. It just struck me as an odd thing to have out there.

[Flasch186]

FWIW on the mortgage mod front, my parents have had to do it and have had to resend documentation to their lender, Wells Fargo, multiple times because they would lose it or miscategorize it. sometimes upon further review they'd already have it.

[Northwood_DK]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While reading the standard wire service version of the "Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize" I noticed something odd at the end. Or at least it struck me a little odd.

In the evening, Obama is expected to wave to a torchlight procession from his hotel balcony and stroll with Norwegian royalty to a dinner banquet. He will offer comments a second time there and cap his brisk jaunt to Europe.

It's the part about waving from the balcony that caught my eye. That just seemed like an odd note to include, from a safety/security standpoint.
I mean it just sounded like a "okay protestors, we'll give you a target in the open for a few minutes tonight, just thought you'd like a heads up".
Yeah, I know, there's security everywhere etc etc etc. It just struck me as an odd thing to have out there.

Its a tradition the peace prize winners have all done he last several years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Northwood_DK

Its a tradition the peace prize winners have all done he last several years.

Ah, didn't know that, makes more sense to me now. Thanks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Northwood_DK

Its a tradition the peace prize winners have all done he last several years.

It's all fun and games until a few torches get tossed through the hotel windows.

[molson]

Apparently some Norwegians are pissed off that Obama isn't going to stick around for all 15 million tradtional nobel prize winner activites.

I mean, the guy kind of has a busy job....

We all can't live like lazy, drunken Norwegians.

[Flasch186]

Interesting conversation happening out there the vast majority bof americans want to raise taxes on the rich....

this is fun mbbf

Americans Want Government to Spend for Jobs, Send Bill to Rich - Yahoo! News

inaccurate, but fun.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Interesting conversation happening out there the vast majority bof americans want to raise taxes on the rich....

Hasn't that been Democratic election strategy for like 20 years now?

[panerd]

"We want businesses to provide more jobs!"
"Let's tax the rich people!"
"That will enable businesses to provide more jobs!"
"Oh wait, the rich people own the businesses, never thought of that!"
"Well at least Obama and the Democratic congressmen are in our corner. None of them are rich!"

[panerd]

Senator 1: "AIG is thinking about giving bonuses out and increasing their pay! That's an outrage!"
Senator 2: "How about you do something positive first and then we will talk about paying you more? What kind of a system rewards complete failure?"
Senator 3: "We need you guys on the Senate floor, we are voting on increasing our pay."

[flere-imsaho]

I enjoyed the following commentary on Obama's Nobel speech from NPR's All Things Considered last night:

ROBERT SIEGEL, host:

Now some reactions to the speech from Richard Haass, who used to be President Bush's head of policy planning at the State Department, from Howard Fineman of Newsweek and MSNBC, and first from Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation. She calls the speech powerful in the way it confronted the paradox of receiving the peace prize just after escalating the Afghan war.

Ms. KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL (Editor and Publisher, The Nation): I take away from it that President Obama is an ethical realist. It was a speech grounded in realism with elements of idealism. And I, Robert, thought it was building on the quartet of major speeches he's given in this past year beginning to layout in Obama doctrine - speeches in Cairo, Prague, Moscow and Ankara. So, it was an important speech and directly you could see why the Nobel Committee awarded him this prize. It was a rebuke to the unilateralism, the jingoism of the Bush years. This speech had a humility and grace while confronting the paradoxes.

SIEGEL: But you seem to be resolving this conflict between the wartime president, who's escalated the U.S. operation in Afghanistan and the peace prize winner, and the speech about peace rather easily. I'm surprised. I'm surprised you're not more stuck on that one.

Ms. HEUVEL: One of the factors of life in America, I think, Robert, is complexity. And while I, and the magazine I edit, have been in full opposition to both the Bush administration and its war in Iraq and to the war it bequeathed the Obama administration and the war he is making his own, one also has to understand that there is a fight ahead, that no great change comes without struggle from below, which President Obama spoke of. And he spoke of those who truly have fought for change from below like Martin Luther King Jr.

And I think it is up to the people, not only in the United States, but this world, to push him to live up to the words he spoke in the speech which was a complex speech. It was a, kind of a speech that could be taught in a college course on just war and America's role in the world. And that's why I am both interested in its complexity, but I'm also aware of the fact that he is a war president who is presiding over the escalation of a war that this country need not fight to be more secure and that may endanger his role in the world that he seeks.

SIEGEL: Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor, publisher of The Nation, thank you very much for talking with us.

Ms. HEUVEL: Thank you, Robert.

SIEGEL: And now to Richard Haass who is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Richard Haass, the speech by a wartime president receiving a peace prize, your sense, how did President Obama pull off that fairly tricky assignment?

Dr. RICHARD HAASS (President, Council on Foreign Relations): Well, the shorthand is that he pulled it off and I think he pulled it off not just quite well, but extremely well. More broadly, I thought this was a really smart thoughtful speech where he essentially pointed out the complexities and the textures of the issue. And I thought people learned a lot if they listened closely.

SIEGEL: I just want to ask you your sense of this event as a speech about international relations. President Obama, as he acknowledged, was given this prize as much in anticipation of what he is to do as in recognition of accomplishments. It's what he's said he will do. But saying this only is of prize-winning seriousness because he is the president of the United States. This prize has much to do with expectations of the role that the U.S. should play in the world.

Dr. HAASS: Oh, it's in some ways all about that and there's a history of that. On several occasions the Nobel Peace Prize has been given to say human rights activists not because necessarily of what they have accomplished but as a way of putting some wind behind their sails. What they maybe didn't bargain for, ironically enough, was the heavy dose of realism they got today. This was, in many ways, a speech that many of the previous presidents could have delivered, talking about the important contribution that U.S. foreign policy makes to the security of the world, speaking about evil in the world. This was pretty realistic stuff and I'm not sure the more pacifist or idealist types who comprise the Nobel committee necessarily anticipated that this is what they were going to hear.

SIEGE: Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations. Thanks a lot for talking with us.

Dr. HAASS: Thanks for having me, Robert.

SIEGEL: And now to Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent of Newsweek and MSNBC. Howard, you've already described the speech as one that could have been written not just for past presidents but for the previous president, for George W. Bush.

Mr. HOWARD FINEMAN (Chief Political Correspondent, Newsweek): Well, I said in many ways that's true. Yes, the tone was humble. Yes, it was philosophical. Yes, it was complex. He talked about negotiations and banning torture and so forth, the importance of diplomacy. But I was struck, as somebody who covered the Bush administration, by how fundamentally he accepted some of the premises of George W. Bush's view of the world - the existence of evil. The president used the word terrorism several times. That's a word he's avoided in some recent speeches. He said no jihad could ever be a just war. No holy war could ever be just, but he said that in essence the war in Afghanistan was. Those are all notes I think that George W. Bush might well have struck.

SIEGEL: Why do you think President Obama gave such a speech? That - you would suggest here it's out of character?

Mr. FINEMAN: Well, first of all, I don't think it's entirely out of character. I think even though he came to prominence with that anti-war speech, anti-Iraq speech that he gave in 2002, his positions have always been much more nuanced and realistic than some of his most fervent supporters have thought. They weren't listening to everything he said. He's always been a realist. He's never been a pacifist. And he showed that by the decisions he's made recently.

SIEGEL: And his audience for this speech, who do you think it was?

Mr. FINEMAN: Well, it wasn't the people in Norway because they weren't applauding, and he skipped lunch and he skipped dinner very much in the Bush fashion to get back here to the United States. I think the audience was middle-class swing voters in the United States of America who elected him and who will decide his future.

SIEGEL: Howard Fineman, thank you very much for talking with us.

I've bolded the part that made me want to post it here when I heard it last night, as a somewhat-good explanation of why I (and people like me) voted for Obama and still support him: a combination of idealism & realism, tempered by a lot of pragmatism.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

My only confusion was why Obama let Dubya write his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. When the same words and ideals come off Obama's lips, it suddenly becomes a rainbow of fruit flavors instead of a briar patch.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You get an A+ for oversimplification!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

You get an A+ for oversimplification!

I think I earned the A+ just for working in a Lucky Charms reference into a political thread.

[Kodos]

The difference is, Obama can read the teleprompter.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

My only confusion was why Obama let Dubya write his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. When the same words and ideals come off Obama's lips, it suddenly becomes a rainbow of fruit flavors instead of a briar patch.

Words generally weren't Bush's problem. He gave a few good speeches, but when it came time for action he tended to fuck things up.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think I earned the A+ just for working in a Lucky Charms reference into a political thread.

To not just let me snarky comment lie, I found Obama's speech to be very realpolitik while Bush's foreign policy speeches were filled with blustery idealism.

[molson]

I found that the speeches of both Obama and Bush generally sucked pretty bad. "Blustery idealism" is a pretty generous description of Bush's babbles, and Obama has that fake tone that makes him sound like he's always acting in an action movie or something.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I found that the speeches of both Obama and Bush generally sucked pretty bad. "Blustery idealism" is a pretty generous description of Bush's babbles, and Obama has that fake tone that makes him sound like he's always acting in an action movie or something.

+1

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm speaking of substance over style.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama has that fake tone that makes him sound like he's always acting in an action movie or something.

[whisper] We've secretly replaced the American President with actor Dwayne Johnson ... let's see if they notice [/whisper]

[panerd]

Originally Posted by President Obama

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths - that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.".

I thought Kennedy tried to end the Vietnam war? I am of course referring to the direction of his administration before his assassination.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

[whisper] We've secretly replaced the American President with actor Dwayne Johnson ... let's see if they notice [/whisper]

DO YOU SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLALALALALALALA-OWWWWWWW!!........what the 'bama.........is........cookin'?!?!?!?!

(arena roars with approval)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I found that the speeches of both Obama and Bush generally sucked pretty bad. "Blustery idealism" is a pretty generous description of Bush's babbles, and Obama has that fake tone that makes him sound like he's always acting in an action movie or something.

I thought Bush's democracy speech was pretty good.

[CamEdwards]

From what I've read, I think this is the best speech Obama's delivered as president.

[Flasch186]

...and Ill try to be a better MBBF

Interesting report coming out of the hill today that shows that the Health Care bill is bad.

US health care tab to keep growing under overhaul - Yahoo! News

in this case, if the govt arm is truly bipartisan and not spun, than this is sobering and hopefully can spur some improvements to the bill.

[panerd]

I am not a big fan of Obama but I have to admit he has really bad luck. This is an actual magaizine that just hit the newsstands. (Saw it on Bill Simmons site)

[Flasch186]

Oh Bama!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

[whisper] We've secretly replaced the American President with actor Dwayne Johnson ... let's see if they notice [/whisper]

..."Actor"... Dwayne Johnson?

SI

[JPhillips]

So the GOP created their own version of tinyurl, except with a GOP frame around the page. Unfortunately they didn't think that people would do things like this:

http://gop.am/0B9y

or this

http://gop.am/9h14

and that doesn't even count all the porn sites.

Today they shut their service down.