On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[aquaadverse]

you're certainly entitled to your opinion of the advisor's job performance, but tell me, are you there in the white house to be capable of saying who "are close advisors"?

yeah, didn't think so...

No, I just look at results. Look at W and and his basically smooth early passing of his agenda with all the baggage after the 2000 election. Rove and Cheney's finger prints are all over it. They twisted arms and waltzed the Dems into offering that "rebate".

Obama screwed the pooch and it was unnecessary. Either he refuses to listen or they are flat incompetent.

no, you've got it backwards, clinton carries the pardon request to justice to get their input, which of course is not needed as it is the sole right of the president, without any other's consent, to grant a pardon.

Yeah, I'm sure he was aware of all the 140 pardons he signed on his last day in office. If you think he was the one who built that list and handed it to the AG office, when those were just the ones who passed, I'd love to see the ones who didn't make the cut. While all of the modern Prez have a couple of controversial pardons none of them were quite as brazen.
And then there was this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rdon-95730754/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ml#cnnSTCVideo

You might think it has no bearing on his ability to make nonpolitical decisions based on "simply right and wrong", but even Holder disagrees with you. He was hauled in front of a pissed off Congress because he gave a "neutral leaning towards favorable" opinion. It's a bit of a stretch to say he was politically neutral as the number two guy, and briefly Bush's AG after recommending the pardon of a person who had been on the FBI's ten most wanted list that fled the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton might have signed the pardon, but the recommendation was his.

oh, ronald reagan spent a great deal of time talking about the media.

carter never served a day in washington, obama has. carter brought a bunch of washington outsiders to washington for his staff, obama has brought back a bunch of washington insiders for his staff.

Reagan didn't whine about about it and actually gave factual rebuttals instead of generic "misinformation from people who profit from the current system" which has only fanned the flames. Nixon was big on blaming the media for undermining his administration, hardly a circumstance Obama has despite his rhetoric.

Being sworn in and having an office isn't spending time in Washington. I was lucky enough to have John Edwards as a Senator, and North Carolina suffered because of it. He wanted the Senate as a platform to run for President.

Clinton was a politician who had no problem shifting his ideological stance to stay in office. He forged a relationship with the Republicans after the midterms. Carter refused to do it, even with his own Party's majority in Congress.

Obama might have a bunch of insiders, but they don't seem to be very good. It's difficult to see how you can have a huge majority in both Houses of Congress, people gushing all over you with little reason except charisma and speaking ability and symbolism,Then use a "Jump aboard or we'll roll over you" without seeing ain't gonna make it.

He's losing the Independents and moderates. People thinking it's a good idea to read legislation, that you should pay attention to protesters, would have been a good idea after the rumblings from the stimulus bill. After the omnibus spending bill was jammed through and all the pledges of transparency and posting legislation etc... just went away he could have probably still tamped it down by at least acknowledging some of the concerns might have merit.

The polls certainly seemed to point to it being worthy of attention. I went to a town hall down here in Broward county, hardly a Republican stronghold. People were pissed because it seemed their voices and concerns were being ignored as not being real. I believe the liberalize is "disenfranchised". It was the percieved attitude.

Don't know what insiders he's got onboard but running with the "Republicans are dead, don't pay them no mind" is pretty stupid. Being stunned at the resistance after shoveling coal on the fire is even worse.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

No, I just look at results. Look at W and and his basically smooth early passing of his agenda with all the baggage after the 2000 election. Rove and Cheney's finger prints are all over it. They twisted arms and waltzed the Dems into offering that "rebate".

Obama screwed the pooch and it was unnecessary. Either he refuses to listen or they are flat incompetent.

to review, you said "He [Emanuel] is still the only one that spent much time in Washington including Obama. It's the classic noobie pattern. Carter and Clinton did the same thing.", to which I replied with a list of several advisors who had been in washington for decades, to which you replied "None of them are close advisers. Whoever is advising him is doing a poor job". I pointed out (correctly I might add) that "you're certainly entitled to your opinion of the advisor's job performance, but tell me, are you there in the white house to be capable of saying who "are close advisors"?".

so to recap, your assertion on the staff not having "spent much time in washington" is wrong, and clearly you do not know who is a "close advisor" and who is not.

the rest is really not worth responding to.

Yeah, I'm sure he was aware of all the 140 pardons he signed on his last day in office. If you think he was the one who built that list and handed it to the AG office, when those were just the ones who passed, I'd love to see the ones who didn't make the cut. While all of the modern Prez have a couple of controversial pardons none of them were quite as brazen.
And then there was this:

You might think it has no bearing on his ability to make nonpolitical decisions based on "simply right and wrong", but even Holder disagrees with you. He was hauled in front of a pissed off Congress because he gave a "neutral leaning towards favorable" opinion. It's a bit of a stretch to say he was politically neutral as the number two guy, and briefly Bush's AG after recommending the pardon of a person who had been on the FBI's ten most wanted list that fled the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton might have signed the pardon, but the recommendation was his.

hmm, all that and you still cannot refute my point..it is the president, and ONLY the president, who makes the decision of granting a pardon.

the president decides who gets a pardon. the justice attorney gives input, the president may choose to take to heart the input, or the president can throw it into the trash can and make a decision that is contrary to what justice reccommends.

that is fact, live with it. clinton pardoned marc rich, did so due to a bunch of campaign contributions and also because of lobbying by israel. eric holder did not ask clinton to pardon marc rich, and eric holder wasn't the reason marc rich was pardoned.

what I've noticed is when you are shown to be wrong, you just ignore what you had been wrong about and go off on some long winded discourse.

you are wrong about pardons, and you were wrong about obama's staff.. just live with it and stop the attempts at sidestepping.

[dude1394]

I don't know if you call this a whine or a dean scream. But anyone who thinks that the president of the united states should have this on his official website...well they may have a man-crush of gigantic porportions.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event...ngevent/gpk4cj

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---* RECLAIM OUR LAND FROM THE HEIRS OF, YES: BIN LADEN *---* YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE *---

In case you haven't seen it in the News: Republican Representatives, Senators, GOP Party Leader, GOP Political Machine top personnel (e.g., Gingritch), etc etc etc --- they're ALL every one of them applauding and encouraging their zealot-horde by merrily referring to them as "Proud Right-Wing Terrorists". Google it - I'm not pulling your leg.

But don't hate them: Misguided citizens are easy-pickings for demagogues, whom they blindly follow because they’ve been trained all their lives not to question the dogma of their religion, so it’s natural for them NOT TO QUESTION what’s being spoon-fed to them by their FALSE PROPHETS who, themselves, shamelessly seek Worldly Glory.

They don’t apply the simple Test: “Am I being led closer to God, when I do what these folks say? – Or, am I on a Bullet-Train to the Devil, and I’m just a pawn to make these folks richer and more powerful?” Because, you know: the Faith one has in God, is different from faith one should have in Man. And you need to be even MORE skeptical, when one of ‘em says that God picked them for something or another. You can bet whatever they’re doing is making them more powerful/ more wealthy, and certainly less pious, no? Ooops, and following them is making YOU less pious too, in thought, and in deed. Yesseree, it’s a real thing to chew on.

Just remember: We Are The Super-Heroes Who Yes WE DID, and YES, WE SHALL commence administering Super-Hero Karate Chops, beginning now.

Oh, and can some of you facebook and tweat this around? I'm not that good at it yet.
IF YOU MISS THIS DAY, JUST DO IT OVER THE WEEKEND – IT'LL ALL GET REPORTED TO THE RESPECTIVE SENATORS ON MONDAY, ANYWAY.