Not exactly a conservative rag either.

[Guest]

Another lie exposed. It's a long read. VK will like it.

Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop)

[Guest]

Another lie exposed. It's a long read. VK will like it.

Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop)


Thank DKL...although I only read the first 3 pages or so (subscription required after that, I surely got the idea) and would add the following...

"Back when he agreed to advise the Obama administration on economics, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told friends that he thought it would be good for GE and good for the country. A life-long Republican, Immelt said he believed he could at the very least moderate the president’s distinctly anti-business instincts.

That was three years ago; these days Immelt is telling friends something quite different.

Sure, GE has managed to feast on federal subsidies, particularly the “green-energy” giveaways that are Obamanomics’ hallmark.

But Immelt doesn’t think he’s had anywhere near as much luck moderating the president’s fat-cat-bashing, left-leaning economic agenda of taxing businesses and entrepreneurs to pay for government bloat."

"Friends describe Immelt as privately dismayed that, even after three years on the job, President Obama hasn’t moved to the center, but instead further left. The GE CEO, I’m told, is appalled by everything from the president’s class-warfare rhetoric to his continued belief that big government is the key to economic salvation."

Jeffrey Immelt sours on Obama—Charles Gasparino - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_angry_adviser_YOANZQkGODYVqFDAsI9LjP)

[Guest]

The main point was, turns out the republicans called his bluff and offered Obama what he wanted including the tax increases he asked for and Obama walked away from it. Why? Because you can't run against a do nothing congress if you strike a deal with them.

What snake he is.

[Guest]

Boy, you guys seem to have placed all the blame for the failed "grand bargain" on the POTUS alone. After reading the whole article, it seemed to me like Obama was very inexperienced at negotiating the final points in the deal. But at the same time Boehner couldn't manage the factions in his party very well either. The article seems to assert that there was plenty of blame to be shared by all parties to the negotiations. The real fly in the ointment seemed to be the Gang of Six, who had negotiated and publicized an even more aggressive plan than either Obama or Boehner were willing to consider. Probably both party leaders could be blamed for not keeping their colleagues under control while Boehner, Cantor and Obama were negotiating. The sad thing for the country is that this group of political leaders couldn't pull it off.

By the way, Bucco, you don't need a subscription to the Post, just the registration of an e-mail address and password.

[Guest]

Boy, you guys seem to have placed all the blame for the failed "grand bargain" on the POTUS alone. After reading the whole article, it seemed to me like Obama was very inexperienced at negotiating the final points in the deal. But at the same time Boehner couldn't manage the factions in his party very well either. The article seems to assert that there was plenty of blame to be shared by all parties to the negotiations. The real fly in the ointment seemed to be the Gang of Six, who had negotiated and publicized an even more aggressive plan than either Obama or Boehner were willing to consider. Probably both party leaders could be blamed for not keeping their colleagues under control while Boehner, Cantor and Obama were negotiating. The sad thing for the country is that this group of political leaders couldn't pull it off.

By the way, Bucco, you don't need a subscription to the Post, just the registration of an e-mail address and password.


Thanks for the note on the link VK....and want you to know that I, and I do not think anyone else, blame ONLY the President and will leave it at that for now.

[Guest]

I 100% blame Obama as he is the POTUS and is expected to represent and protect America and the will of the people. Obama as I have posted many times before does not meet or come close to performing as a leader. In fact just the opposite.

A leader must at times make and take unpopular and at times decisions with risk. As a pedigreed, self first politician with a very contrived agenda does not perform.

His speeches (as I have also posted before) seem to be what he considers addressing a problem or issue.

Like it or not as the chief executive he owns all the problems that come with the office. His other mode of operating is to offer up what he inherited or after something does not materialize as in a speech, he babbles how much worse something was than expected.

Leaders do not offer excuses. They do what needs to be done. They set the example.

Based on executive performance/accomplishment measuring, he does not get a passing grade and would have been removed his first year on the job.

Obama 100% at fault for where America is today!! No excuses. Same goes for any R or D or black or tan or christian and non christian and what ever other flavors some would offer.

btk

[Guest]

So, when Boehner and Obama came to a deal during one of these incidents and the *Freshman* Republicans scuttled it - THAT was Obama's fault?

[Guest]

So, when Boehner and Obama came to a deal during one of these incidents and the *Freshman* Republicans scuttled it - THAT was Obama's fault?

Lets insure that your comments are kept in the proper perspective.

You do NOT mention that they had a deal and then the President UPPED the deal which made a tough sale for Boehner, an impossible one.

From the link..


"Obama, nervous about how to defend the emerging agreement to his own Democratic base, upped the ante in a way that made it more difficult for Boehner — already facing long odds — to sell it to his party."

I realize you will always defend this administration and that is fine but it should be in total context.

[Guest]

I 100% blame Obama as he is the POTUS and is expected to represent and protect America and the will of the people. Obama as I have posted many times before does not meet or come close to performing as a leader. In fact just the opposite.

A leader must at times make and take unpopular and at times decisions with risk. As a pedigreed, self first politician with a very contrived agenda does not perform.

His speeches (as I have also posted before) seem to be what he considers addressing a problem or issue.

Like it or not as the chief executive he owns all the problems that come with the office. His other mode of operating is to offer up what he inherited or after something does not materialize as in a speech, he babbles how much worse something was than expected.

Leaders do not offer excuses. They do what needs to be done. They set the example.

Based on executive performance/accomplishment measuring, he does not get a passing grade and would have been removed his first year on the job.

Obama 100% at fault for where America is today!! No excuses. Same goes for any R or D or black or tan or christian and non christian and what ever other flavors some would offer.

btk

BTK: spot on

[Guest]

So, when Boehner and Obama came to a deal during one of these incidents and the *Freshman* Republicans scuttled it - THAT was Obama's fault?

DJP Obama is an expert at posturing and deflection. Anyone who has negotiated will quickly recognize the continued "I'm injured here' technique when in fact it is apparent he has or will never give up anything. There are plenty of individuals and organization this past three years that have finally felt the sting of this scorpion. He can only act in one way because of his left leaning and radical associations and his only job as a community organizer, none of which, by the way, properly prepared him for the position he now holds. Obama wants what Obama wants. If Obama were a country he would be North Korea. And frankly I am sick to death of the Alinsky/Ayers/Wright/Axelrod "B" as in "B" and "S" as in"S' and nonsense!

[Guest]

Lets insure that your comments are kept in the proper perspective.

You do NOT mention that they had a deal and then the President UPPED the deal which made a tough sale for Boehner, an impossible one.

From the link..


"Obama, nervous about how to defend the emerging agreement to his own Democratic base, upped the ante in a way that made it more difficult for Boehner — already facing long odds — to sell it to his party."

I realize you will always defend this administration and that is fine but it should be in total context.Read the article. The ante was upped by the Gang of Six, a bipartisan group of forward-thinking legislators. Obama was reacting to the much more aggressive proposal for spending cuts and tax increases proposed by them right in the middle of his negotiations with Boehner. A badly handled negotiation? Yes. But both Obama and Boehner were placed in a position where neither of them could 'deliver' their base constituencies to anything close to what the Gang of Six had proposed. From that point forward, the parties assumed a CYA mentality, blaming the other guys for the failed negotiations.

And that's what some of you continue to do...blame only one party to he negotiations. It's pretty clear that the Gang of Six, while well-intentioned, put both Obama and Boehner in a position that assured the failure of their negotiations.

As much as anything, it's a demonstration on how broken our system of government really is. If you want to place more of the blame on the POTUS based on the moor trance of is office, that's fair I suppose. But this incident of legislative failure had a lot of authors.

[Guest]

Read the article. The ante was upped by the Gang of Six, a bipartisan group of forward-thinking legislators. Obama was reacting to the much more aggressive proposal for spending cuts and tax increases proposed by them right in the middle of his negotiations with Boehner. A badly handled negotiation? Yes. But both Obama and Boehner were placed in a position where neither of them could 'deliver' their base constituencies to anything close to what the Gang of Six had proposed. From that point forward, the parties assumed a CYA mentality, blaming the other guys for the failed negotiations.

And that's what some of you continue to do...blame only one party to he negotiations. It's pretty clear that the Gang of Six, while well-intentioned, put both Obama and Boehner in a position that assured the failure of their negotiations.

As much as anything, it's a demonstration on how broken our system of government really is. If you want to place more of the blame on the POTUS based on the moor trance of is office, that's fair I suppose. But this incident of legislative failure had a lot of authors.

My single motivation was to ensure the simple sentence by DJPLONG did not stand alone.....my add just put it into context and there was no attempt to blame or compliment.

I am well aware of what happend...I am well aware that much of the problem needs to be shared...but you just cant let this stand alone..

"So, when Boehner and Obama came to a deal during one of these incidents and the *Freshman* Republicans scuttled it - THAT was Obama's fault?"

THAT sentence makes is NONE of Obama's fault which I assume was the intent.

By the way, I got registered at the POST...I have gotten into such a habit of just leaving when I see a screen resembling that.....so many are pay now.

[Guest]

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - at no time was I saying Obama was blameless. I just don't believe he shoulders 100% of the blame.

[Guest]

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - at no time was I saying Obama was blameless. I just don't believe he shoulders 100% of the blame.

Then you may have presented it a bit differently perhaps.

You have more trust of this man than I.....and I promise you, once proven that I am wrong about him, I will come here and admit it, but almost each day he takes great liberties with words and paints pictures that are just slanted and not true. I realize that politicians on both sides do this, but he is the most blatant I have ever seen,and I am older than dirt. Today he did with oil production and he will continue on something else in the future. This is my country and the thought of him in the WH with no fear of facing the electorate is scary.

[Guest]

DJP Obama is an expert at posturing and deflection. Anyone who has negotiated will quickly recognize the continued "I'm injured here' technique when in fact it is apparent he has or will never give up anything. There are plenty of individuals and organization this past three years that have finally felt the sting of this scorpion. He can only act in one way because of his left leaning and radical associations and his only job as a community organizer, none of which, by the way, properly prepared him for the position he now holds. Obama wants what Obama wants. If Obama were a country he would be North Korea. And frankly I am sick to death of the Alinsky/Ayers/Wright/Axelrod "B" as in "B" and "S" as in"S' and nonsense!


:BigApplause: :BigApplause: :BigApplause: