[Windwalker]

No, I did not hear it directly. I did hear comments about it on the news, though. It seems he appealed to both side of the aisle to work together to pass the healthcare bill. "We need to pass this no matter how the public feels about it because we're smarter than they are."

So much for "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[Mr. Ford95]

I was in bed asleep but I hear the Repubs got him ticked off real good with a timely snicker at something he said. From what I understand he paused a few seconds upon hearing the snickers then gave a nasty retort of "Thats how the budget works." You want the Repubs support and help but you instantly try to toss them under the bus but in the process proved to the people of this country that you can't take critisicm. He needed to man up and come clean with the American people, instead he again blamed Bush for a year of failures and then blamed the Repubs for not getting on board with him. Hey brainiac try including them in bill discussions instead of allowing Reid and Pelosi to lock the door on them.

[Windwalker]

Guess, Momma didn't get to teach him much about "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". You can't say he has no sense of humor, but he sure seems to be "thin skinned".

[Roadhog]

Actions speak louder than words. Obama fails to prove he's not what he says he's not. America and the world saw the smallest U.S. President ever in our Nations history. He thinks he can polish up a turd (his ideology) and it will look good. Maybe he needs to just give a thousand more speeches, only this time use smaller words, and speak slower. Nothing has changed. The progressives will continue ahead with their policies. I heard more lies, lip service, and hypocracy.

I could lip read one guys response to Obama, during the speech that really cracked me up.

[GMAN]

They don't seem to understand that the stupid American people have seen through their little plans. I suppose we aren't quite as stupid as they thought.:lol:

[ironeagle_2006]

You talking about when the IDIOT in Chief Obama was Throwing the Supreme Court Under the Bus. When Justce Alito when that is Not True. Look for a VERY HARD LINE FROM THE COURT NOW. There is one thing you NEVER DO AS PRESIDENT THAT IS PUBLICALY CALL OUT THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE STATE OF THE UNION. Put it to you this way Obama just wrote a check I do not think his PARTY OR HIS ***** CAN CASH.

[Scoe]

Even a true Obama supporter would agree if they are trying to be somewhat objective, that this president's tone is wearing thin on most of the American people.

He is almost always condescending and arrogant.
He almost always "lectures" those who don't agree with his policies or just don't get it.
He ALWAYS never misses a chance to blame Bush for anything.

He even went to the Republican leadership conference in Baltimore on this past Friday in the guise of reaching out for bi-partisanship and instead, lectured them on mislabeling he health care proposal.

It's funny though, the economy we have today is Bush's fault according to Chairman O. Unless it's good news, such as the GDP going up on Friday, then it's to his credit.

I just don't remember any US president in modern history having the need to ALWAYS state the previous administrations
evil's to prop himself up. Constantly!!

It's getting old and tired with the independents and moderates, those are the voters who he won over to get into office. They now have buyers remorse and will vote accordingly in 2010.

[golfhobo]

Scoe said:

Even a true Obama supporter would agree if they are trying to be somewhat objective, that this president's tone is wearing thin on most of the American people.

No I wouldn't. Although the polls show that a THIN majority of voters may disagree with his POLICIES (as they have been misinformed about them,) a MAJORITY of Americans STILL poll as having a favorable opinion of HIM as a person and as a president. That's a fact.

He is almost always condescending and arrogant.

Sometimes.... I might would agree. But, I believe that condescension is noticed most by those who feel THEMSELVES to be "superior." And arrogance has become the GOP euphemism for "uppity." Remember his book, The Audacity of Hope?" It is precisely that "audacity," when embodied by a Black man, that still makes many people in our society resort to accusations of "arrogance."

He almost always "lectures" those who don't agree with his policies or just don't get it.

Hyperbole at its best. I agree that SOMETIMES one might get that impression. However, he knows (as I do) that these people DO "get it" but just want to distort it, lie about it, and politicize it. Therefore.... he is rightfully pointing out what they are doing. If you want to call that a "lecture" then I agree that they deserve it.

He ALWAYS never misses a chance to blame Bush for anything.

You're a smart guy, Scoe, so I KNOW that you know that you didn't add anything to the thought by including the superfluous word "always." That being beside the point... he is forced to remind the people just WHO got us into this economic mess because since the announcement of the stimulus package HE has been "blamed" for the lack of instant recovery of the economy. Sure, there is some politics involved.... it is good to remind the people that the last Democratic administration left a surplus and that Bush spent it like a drunken sailor. However, it wouldn't be necessary if the GOP would just take responsibility for the situation instead of screaming "socialst!"

He even went to the Republican leadership conference in Baltimore on this past Friday in the guise of reaching out for bi-partisanship and instead, lectured them on mislabeling he health care proposal.

Did you watch it? I did. Did you hear all the positive comments from the Republicans? I did. Did you hear the followup punditry by Republicans who are giving him credit for it? I did. Or did you just listen to Glen Beck demonize him for it? I did.

He rightfully "scolded" them for mislabeling the health care initiative because that is exactly what they have done! Without any proof, they have labeled it as: A gov't TAKEOVER of the entire industry. (even YOU don't believe that, do you?) DEATH PANELS for Grandma. (yeah, right!) a big CUT in medicare benefits to seniors (when the truth is the only cut would be to bogus payments to insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage plan.) And he "scolded" them for being obstructionists... which is exactly what they have been.

It's funny though, the economy we have today is Bush's fault according to Chairman O. Unless it's good news, such as the GDP going up on Friday, then it's to his credit.

EVERY economist in the country, of EITHER party, agree that we got where we are due to the policies and actions of the last administration. Even most Republican congressmen admit it. Under the historic definition of recessions and recoveries, they ALL would also agree that the increase in the GDP signals an improvement, and that we wouldn't be to that point without the actions taken to SAVE the banking system and to stabilize the markets. Since we ALL know that employment is a "lagging indicator," you can't blame the slow recovery of jobs on his policies. In fact, the "bleeding" now is much less than the monthly totals at the end of the Bush era.

EVEN granting you the "cyclical" nature of recessionary periods in our economy, you can't dismiss the near total collapse of the economy brought on by BUSH policies, nor the "moderate" improvements of where we are TODAY vs. one year ago. Quote me the "index" averages from the month just following Bush's long overdue departure, and those of this last month.

I just don't remember any US president in modern history having the need to ALWAYS state the previous administration's evils to prop himself up. Constantly!!

Your memory may be failing (as goes for most of us.) Clinton had to do alot of "deflecting" when he came to power to show the difference between the economy Reagan left us and the one HE left us with. But, more interesting is the commonality that the only two recent presidents who have HAD to "defend" themselves in such a manner WERE Democrats. Why? Because the GOP has a battle plan of only screaming "tax and spend" (although some admit that BUSH was as bad OR WORSE,) or just flat out LYING about the tennets, implications, motives and results of any Democratic president's initiatives or accomplishments.

It's getting old and tired with the independents and moderates, those are the voters who he won over to get into office. They now have buyers remorse and will vote accordingly in 2010.

Although I don't dismiss this general trend or possibility, I might remind you that independents ARE such because they are "fence sitters." Willy Nilly's who can't take a stand or just tend to go with the flow. Moderates, on the other hand, are committed to a "centrist" solution to our problems and are quickly disparaged by EITHER party who fails to show progress in breaking the status quo in Washington.

Dubya "won" (sic) his election with their help (and that of Scalia and the SCOTUS) and even STILL garnered fewer "popular" votes. You can scarcely call that a victory.

The 2010 elections are obviously up for grabs at this point. But, NOT so much as a referendum on Obama as perhaps a disenchantment with the politics as usual of Pelosi and her party members.

So..... going back to your INITIAL claim, I reject it. The polls don't support it. Neither do the facts. I don't defend the Democratic leadership of the Congress any more than I would that of the "party of NO." But, I believe you are falling prey to the oversimplification of many of "your" party... that it is OBAMA who is to blame.

Oh and BTW.... I believe he is TOUGH enough to "take it" and stand up to it. He claims that he is more concerned with doing what he believes is RIGHT for the country than he is with being re-elected. For now, at least, I still believe him. Which is more than I could EVER say about Dubya.

[Windwalker]

I can't believe I actually sat and read the entire post...

Originally Posted by golfhobo

You're a smart guy, Scoe, so I KNOW that you know that you didn't add anything to the thought by including the superfluous word "always." That being beside the point... he is forced to remind the people just WHO got us into this economic mess because since the announcement of the stimulus package HE has been "blamed" for the lack of instant recovery of the economy. Sure, there is some politics involved.... it is good to remind the people that the last Democratic administration left a surplus and that Bush spent it like a drunken sailor. However, it wouldn't be necessary if the GOP would just take responsibility for the situation instead of screaming "socialst!"

Sorry. I can not agree with this. It wasn't the Bush Administration that started us down this road. It's been coming for several decades that I know of. I've seen it coming more than 20 years ago. Clinton did not know how to stop it, and neither did either one of the Bush's. The only change we got is different names for economic experts that are the administration's advisers. But the problem is that they all went to the same schools and learned the same lessons. They all make the same mistakes. And, we are left to pay for it. What we get to see is not much different, the names have changed, but the story line is still on the same course.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Did you watch it? I did. Did you hear all the positive comments from the Republicans? I did. Did you hear the followup punditry by Republicans who are giving him credit for it? I did. Or did you just listen to Glen Beck demonize him for it? I did.

I wish I had the chance to watch it. I was making miles at the time, and had little chance to see and hear the comments following it. But, to even infer that he and Congress are smarter than the general public is not a good point to try to make. It amounts to political suicide, because the majority of Americans will resent being told they are not very smart. I know I certainly do.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

He rightfully "scolded" them for mislabeling the health care initiative because that is exactly what they have done! Without any proof, they have labeled it as: A gov't TAKEOVER of the entire industry. (even YOU don't believe that, do you?) DEATH PANELS for Grandma. (yeah, right!) a big CUT in medicare benefits to seniors (when the truth is the only cut would be to bogus payments to insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage plan.) And he "scolded" them for being obstructionists... which is exactly what they have been.

And, if they are reflecting the opinions of their constituents, then, they are doing exactly what they were elected to do. That means they are not being obstructionists, but reflecting the "obstructionist opinions" of their voters. And, that is exactly what their job is.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

EVERY economist in the country, of EITHER party, agree that we got where we are due to the policies and actions of the last administration. Even most Republican congressmen admit it. Under the historic definition of recessions and recoveries, they ALL would also agree that the increase in the GDP signals an improvement, and that we wouldn't be to that point without the actions taken to SAVE the banking system and to stabilize the markets. Since we ALL know that employment is a "lagging indicator," you can't blame the slow recovery of jobs on his policies. In fact, the "bleeding" now is much less than the monthly totals at the end of the Bush era.

Employment, as the data is collected, is a very ambiguous number that means very little. It has traditionally been a number that every administration has been able to hide behind when addressing the public. Want a much better indicator? Go check the supplies at the "food pantries". Ask the volunteers how fast things go as compared to other times in our history. For the first time in anyone's memory, some of the food pantries have been closed because they ran out of food to give. And, that, in the middle of more food being donated than ever before. As soon as they have something in stock to give away, they open their doors again, but many are only open every other week now. Over the last 5 to 7 months, the loads I would haul from food processing plants, whose products you would buy when you have a few dollars to spend, have been shipping less. Cheap meats like hotdogs, and hamberger is selling faster than most other things. That does not sound like an economy that is no longer sliding down. I also know people that are still losing their jobs, and others that are still in fear of losing them. The indicators that I get to see say that we are being lied to just as bad as we were with previous administrations.

Same caliber of economic experts, and the same good news... Do you really want to believe it? I don't.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

EVEN granting you the "cyclical" nature of recessionary periods in our economy, you can't dismiss the near total collapse of the economy brought on by BUSH policies, nor the "moderate" improvements of where we are TODAY vs. one year ago. Quote me the "index" averages from the month just following Bush's long overdue departure, and those of this last month.

Sorry. Think about it as an ocean voyage. Looking at month to month, is the wave height. But look over the past several decades, and the compass heading has not changed.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Your memory may be failing (as goes for most of us.) Clinton had to do alot of "deflecting" when he came to power to show the difference between the economy Reagan left us and the one HE left us with. But, more interesting is the commonality that the only two recent presidents who have HAD to "defend" themselves in such a manner WERE Democrats. Why? Because the GOP has a battle plan of only screaming "tax and spend" (although some admit that BUSH was as bad OR WORSE,) or just flat out LYING about the tennets, implications, motives and results of any Democratic president's initiatives or accomplishments.

I will not defend Bush. Either of them. I will not defend Clinton. And, I doubt you will defend Obama when the bill hits you in the face. And, it will.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Although I don't dismiss this general trend or possibility, I might remind you that independents ARE such because they are "fence sitters." Willy Nilly's who can't take a stand or just tend to go with the flow. Moderates, on the other hand, are committed to a "centrist" solution to our problems and are quickly disparaged by EITHER party who fails to show progress in breaking the status quo in Washington.

Wrong again. The Independents are free thinkers that see the good and bad on both sides of the aisle. I couldn't care less if the concept is from Democrats or Republicans. I look at what I believe to be best for the country. And, to be completely honest, I have not seen much of it from either party. All the good intentions seem to get obscured by "PARTY LINES", and that is one of the major "HOLD-BACKS" that this country has to endure. The inability of one party to see the benefits of the other party's thinking, and also the inability to see the lack of benefit of their own party's thinking. And, those that defend the party's thinking are just like a herd of sheep. Just follow the crowd.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Dubya "won" (sic) his election with their help (and that of Scalia and the SCOTUS) and even STILL garnered fewer "popular" votes. You can scarcely call that a victory.

Dubya won the election over Al Gore because Clinton Politics lost the election for him. Dubya won the second term because the Democrats could not come up with anyone better than John Kerry to run against him.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

The 2010 elections are obviously up for grabs at this point. But, NOT so much as a referendum on Obama as perhaps a disenchantment with the politics as usual of Pelosi and her party members.

And, the captain (Obama) goes down with the ship.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

So..... going back to your INITIAL claim, I reject it. The polls don't support it. Neither do the facts. I don't defend the Democratic leadership of the Congress any more than I would that of the "party of NO." But, I believe you are falling prey to the oversimplification of many of "your" party... that it is OBAMA who is to blame.

Again. Ship, Captain, and Crew... I predict a very strong shift in power in 2010.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Oh and BTW.... I believe he is TOUGH enough to "take it" and stand up to it. He claims that he is more concerned with doing what he believes is RIGHT for the country than he is with being re-elected. For now, at least, I still believe him. Which is more than I could EVER say about Dubya.

The jury is certainly out on this one.

[Windwalker]

Something I might add. There is a Congressman. When Congress in not in session, he's traveling through his district with his motorhome. At various places, he sets up a grill and anyone is invited to stop in (very excellent bar-b-que) and talk about anything. He's not just being that sociable, but getting the opinions of his constituents. When he goes back to Washington, he takes the opinions of his voters with him. His votes do not go along party lines. Instead, they reflect the wishes of the people in his district. That is how he keeps getting re-elected. And, that is his job. The one time, that I know of, that he did not vote according to the people's wishes, he informed them of that beforehand, and explained why. Enough people understood and forgave him for that, and he was able to get re-elected. That is how the system is SUPPOSED TO WORK.

The so called "obstructionists" in the GOP should be doing about the same thing. So, to address them would be the wrong approach. Instead, Obama needs to get to the roots... The people that elected those GOP Congressmen and Congresswomen to office. If the system is working as it should, that is where the obstruction begins. By going to the GOP Congressmen and Congresswomen, Obama is BYPASSING THE SYSTEM!!! And, anytime a national leader bypasses the system, he/she approaches the level of a dictator. Now, YOU add the names to this.