Obama's speech to UAW convention
 

Did any of you see the exceptional and stirring speech President Barack Hussein Obama gave before the auto workers?

No, he didn't talk about "snobs"; he didn't talk about the height of trees, he didn't talk about a former great President's speech causing him to want to throw up, he didn't talk about his wife driving a couple of cadillacs, he didn't talk about banning contraceptives. He didn't talk about any of these things that are seemingly so important to the Repub candiates.

He talked about the resolve and grit and fight in the American worker. He talked about jobs. He talked about saving a significan segment of our economy. He talked about supporting fellow Americans.

Now really....you wonder why we support this President and are working hard to have him lead us for another 4 years? :smiley:

my issue is not with what he "talks about"...that is his expertise...talking about different subjects.

For me what is consistently missing is delivering on what he talks about/promises/commits.

btk

I saw the speech and I applaud the President. Once President Obama gets into campaign mode, whichever republican candidate gets the nomination won't know what hit him. This is the reason no republican heavyweight: Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, or Chris Christie (pun intended) will get in the race in 2012 because they know it will be a career ender when they lose.

Two things.
It has been Obamas MO to think if he talks about it, it is handled, done, finished, solved.
How many presidents have made that kind of speech. Many

Talk, Talk, Talk

Second, It is also easy to give a speech to a bought and paid for audience full of bought and paid for union workers and their bought and paid for bosses.

So I still wonder why you support this president for another 4 years.

I have not seen the speech, I will so I can try to understand what you see in this man.

Bravo for your open minded attitude.

Just wondering how well NAFTA is working out for you?

Ah, he is a good campaigner. No one ever took that away from him. As a President he's been a disaster and an embarrassment. Actions speak louder than words, and the U.S. is so much the poorer because of him. Our once free country is incrementally being put under the thumb of the State, because of him.

in 2008 Obama had the charm of talking his way into the WH with many promises, still unfilled.

What Obama has going against him, good speaker or not, is his 2008 promises not kept.

He is not all that good a debater. He is a practiced/scripted reader.....and very few are not.

All the appearances are canned performances.

While you are entitled to your opinion, to think the "heavy hitters" are staying away from 2012 is kinda incorrect....sounds good....good to believe if he is your man...but just not real. And that is my opinion on it!!

btk

I'm a little confused by your last paragraph. Are you saying the "heavy hitters" are going to get in the game in 2012, or are you saying the existing candidates are the "heavy hitters"?

Not true. :doh:

He's a great snake oil salesman but an otherwise rotten president.

I only offered an opinion against what was posted i.e that the "heavy weights" as you call them would not get into the 2012 race because of Obama's speech making and debating skills.....no inference whatsoever that any of them would in fact get in.....not even close to my thought/opinion expressed.

btk

billethkid: Just for the heck of it, I thought I'd check the Obamameter over at Politifact. The scorecard on his promises:

Kept: 168
Compromise: 52
Broken: 63
Stalled: 67
In The Works: 156
Not Yet Rated: 2

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the scoring, that's an awful lot of promises!

It all depends on whether you accept what PolitiFact deems to be "kept"

Is "in the works" another term for "in the dumper"?

PolitiFact is not a political "bible".

Well, I never said it was a Bible. Any time that you produce a summary like that, there are going to be some cases where interpretation might cause some movement in the numbers.

But what I really like about them is their individual entries. They don't just give a rating (from "True" to "Pants on Fire"). They go into detail about how and why they gave it that rating. As is the case with many incidents, when there are parts that are true and parts that aren't, they'll give you both parts. They also go to the mat trying to get clarification - contacting a candidate's office in many cases to get comments.

At least, if I disagree with Politifact, I'm going to know why.

There's a website that deals with nothing but PolitiFact bias. I think it's actually called politifactbias.com. They don't have your faith.

Not true! :smiley:

Ha! It is interesting that everything that fails to fit your perspective has a bias, but coulter, limbaugh, fox news, hannity et al have none. Hmmmmmmm

Accepting and using the numbers provided calculates out to be a 33% accomplishment. That is just unacceptable to performance oriented, high expectation constituents.

I guess if he hit one of the promises one is affected by one could/would be happy.

These numbers also gloss over the major issues with promises that have not made it to page one priority since made. And it is unacceptable to point to a bunch of other completions with significantly less impact.

My expectation? Do 100% what was promised and do it ASAP. Don't hang around three++ years later and whine about things tougher than expected and pleading for four more years to get the job done.

33% is a failing grade!!! No private industry executive would still be in the job
three years later with such a pitifully low accomplishment record.

My expectations do not change based on R or D or color or creed...however one wins the job they either do it (within a reasonable time period) or they are out. And please don't insult some of us by harping about how some things just take longer. OK, I accept that....show me where those have started, where they are now and when expected to be completed. And we all know that ain't gonna come from any politician.

33% is a failing grade in any book!!

btk

I had had that observation for some time now. :doh:

Hard to get things done with The Party of NO blocking every positive thing he has tried to do. Place the blame where it belongs. :doh:

It's not my website and I've never contributed to it, I only point it out. I never said that the people (et al) you name have no bias. They have a bias to conservative ideals, as do I, but I don't even agree with all of them, all the time.

Fox News has as many liberals on it as the liberal networks and the inclusion of them in your post shows the extent of your bias, and I could say ignorance of the network.

The fact that you point to all these "conservative names" to counter my comments about PolitiFact tells me that even you link PolitiFact more liberal than conservative, and thereby prove my point. Thank you.

I just don't accept Snopes or PolitiFact as any sort of final arbitrator on anything. I'd be foolish if I did.

my post had nothing to do with blame and everything to do with accepting an responding, giving my observations on the performance reflected by the submitted numbers.

That 33% promises kept has been at that level for a year or more.

Good private sector advice? Don't say it if you don't intend to deliver on it.
Of course it is a given and all bets are off when something is said by a politician....especially one that is in continuous campaign mode.

btk

I don't watch Fox News, so please enlighten me as to who the liberals are that Fox employs. Here's a partial list of conservatives that MSNBC has:
Joe Scarborough, former Florida congressman on from 6:00am to 9:00am Monday through Friday; Michael Steele, former chairman of the republican party, Steve Schmidt, former McCain/Palin advisor, Megan McCain, daughter of Senator McCain, Jenna Bush, daughter of the former president.

I don't know how to react to the irrational giddishness from the liberal left concerning Obama's triumphant march into Detroit. The GM Chrysler bailout cost taxpayers $81.8 billlion, ignored creditors rights, gave a large prtion of the company to the UAW and by manipulating corporate tax rules by fiat the Treasury gave an additional $18 billion more in assests. thus the Democratic Administration gave a massive tax benefit to one of its biggest party supporter at the expense of taxpayers. In addition the bailout reimbursement came from other taxpayer funds. While Obama crows about GM high profits the fact remains that they are not paying any taxes on those profits and will not for years to come. It kind of upsets me that as a retiree my tax rate is much higher than GM's Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Boy, based on the affect Obama has on my pocketbook it sure make me want to vote for Obama (not)....

You conspicuously omit the fact that George W Bush doled out the first 25 billion bridge-loan before he left office, then President Obama added 60 billion which has largely been repaid with interest.

Bill - did you vote for Reagan in 1984? Compared to what Obama inherited, Reagan inherited a situation not nearly as dire, produced far fewer results but still got re-elected because people believed that it took time to fix what was wrong.

...the people, and Reagan, turned out to be right.

Obama and his crew are using your tax money for their personal agenda and all you can say is Bush started with a bridge loan. Apparently the post was lost on you. this isn't about party this is about abuse of tax payers money Geeez

yes, and the repub candidates want to reduce corporate income tax to 0%. How's that for not paying taxes. :doh:

Enlighten me. Post several links so I can delve into your facts and figures and learn all it. Trust but verify is my motto.

Hi DaleMN: I am not blind to the faults of the Republican Party. My interest here is pointing out that politicians keep telling us all the good things they are doing for us and I keep saying stop your killing me with all your kindness or more to the point sending me broke.

Taxpayers should be united in letting congress know we want sensible programs that yield cost effective results. However people allow themselves to get side tracked as they have with Obama disingenious boast about the bailouts..


Hit them well and long.

The only conservative on your list is Michael Steele, and he's a wimp. A case can be made for Steve Schmidt, also.

Fox has these liberal commentators: Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Greta Van Sustren, Kirsten Powers, Mara Liasson, Bernie Sanders, Patrick Cadell, Marvin Kalb, Eleanor Clift, Susan Estrich, Bill Shultz, Ed Henry, Kirsten Powers, and there's more.

Fox also has more black commentators than all the other cable networks combined. Among others, there are: Juan Williams, Harris Faulkner, Lauren Green, Angela McGlowan, Charles Payne and Wendell Goler.

It's no wonder that Fox News is the most watched cable news network and that the other networks can't come close in the ratings by a wide margin.

Joe Scarborough would take exception with your statement that he is not a conservative. I must admit I've never heard of most of the people on your list, except Bernie Sanders. Isn't he a US senator? I was listing people that actually work full time for the network, not people that come on occasionally for an interview.

As far as black anchors, I believe you have MSNBC beat. They only have Al Sharpton, who hosts the 6:00 pm show Mon thru Fri, and Tamron Hall who hosts the 2:00pm hour Mon thru Fri. Do all the blacks you list host their own shows?

Of course Fox News would be the most watched news network because it's the only conservative network compared to five liberal networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN.

Oh my, I forgot a major liberal with a show on Fox. The one and only Geraldo Rivera.

I'm not talking about only hosts, but regular contributors and commentators as guests on all the other shows.

Joe Scarborough is a CINO, in the opinion of many (conservative in name only)

And you know this because you watch Morning Joe every morning from 6:00am to 9:00am Mon thru Fri on MSNBC, and you distinctly remember Joe Scarborough's voting record when he went to congress in 1994 as part of the republican revolution that wrote the "Contract with America"?

No I don't watch his show, but plenty of things he says and does reaches me through other media sources.

He says things that no conservative would say. The fact that you are sticking up for him is not helping his case.

Joe considers and talks about both sides of an issue before making final comment. So many folks will hear the vial spewings of Rush and believe every word. No wonder we have so many twisted conservatives.

....hence balancing the scale of twisted Dems....eh?

btk

I take to mean he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and that's why you libs love him.