Thread: Obama's new scapegoat - the Founding Fathers

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Frankly I am surprised he was able to do anything he promised, given that the official repub party line has been to do anything it takes to keep this democrat a one termer. If the Pubs win in 12, and the dems follow the repubs lead, they may announce their only goal is to keep, say, Romney to one term. But, I don't believe the Dems would stoop that low.

Come now, Obama had half his term with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress by a large margin. The second half of his term has the Dems with minor control in the Senate and the Reps with minor control in the House.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

That was actually an anti-slavery provision. Sso while your point sounds good for a sound-bite it actually doesn't add anything to the discussion. In fact, it only served to cloud what was actually said.

Not that it really has anything to do with what Obama stated, but the blatant overuse of the cloture system certainly calls it into question. It was meant to be a rarely-used means of trying to stop tyranny of the majority, not as a way of effectively sabotaging the government of the US.

The Constitution was written to be amended when necessary. It doesn't take an expert in constitutional law like Obama to know that.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

The Constitution was written to be amended when necessary.

I agree. Which is why, if you don't like something about the Constitution, you should change it by amendment, not ignore the rule of law. I'm not the type of person that thinks you cannot change the Constitution at all but you should follow it until it is changed. If you ignore the law then there is no law.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

I thought Obama was a Constitutional scholar. Has he discovered some new information about the system that he didn't previously learn as a constitutional law professor?

Or is this yet another blame game from the President?

The President has been playing the Truman card among others in his re-election campaign. And it's easy for him to play it since he is on the side of wild popular opinion on any number of the major battles of the day.

The right-wing would like to have it said that the President is on either blaming or making excuses here, but then that would mean that he is on the defensive, which he is not.

His approval rating is cracking 50% again, and now he beats Romney by 6 and 9 points in recent polls as Romney badly fails the "more I get to know the more I don't like him" test in the most recent poll about him.

The President was attacking the Congress. He was taking the easiest of slaps at them since the public is mystified by their inaction on things that are settled in their minds already.

He's like "this is where I'd like to be, but they're trailing behind the times".

He knows full well that the idea of allowing for strong minority rights in Congress is useful as a check and balance against really bad things happening, only in today's world the Senate minority uses freely as a means of not having to advance anything and everything, which is a perversion of what the founders intended.

Republicans will do their best to try to spin it in some kind of way that makes it look like Obama can't get things done, but the cat's already out of the bag. We all know they want him to fail at all costs and that their cynical message only works on themselves.

When he said that things don't move as fast as he'd like them to, we agree and we understand why that is.

Obama's on volition here, not defense.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Republicans will do their best to try to spin it in some kind of way that makes it look like Obama can't get things done, but the cat's already out of the bag. We all know they want him to fail at all costs and that their cynical message only works on themselves.

Exactly. If something works then the GOP will say it was because of the House; if something fails they'll say it's because of Obama. It was the same when Bush was in office and the Dems held Congress; mind you, it was the same when Bush was in office and the GOP held both houses of Congress, only then they blamed the supportive Democratic minority. The basic premise is: Republican = good; Democrat = bad.

Mind you, it goes the other too. The Dems will blame the other whenever they can. It's called politics.

Originally Posted by noahath

Exactly. If something works then the GOP will say it was because of the House; if something fails they'll say it's because of Obama. It was the same when Bush was in office and the Dems held Congress; mind you, it was the same when Bush was in office and the GOP held both houses of Congress, only then they blamed the supportive Democratic minority. The basic premise is: Republican = good; Democrat = bad.

Mind you, it goes the other too. The Dems will blame the other whenever they can. It's called politics.

No, they won't.

The Democrats give props when props are due.

The Republicans never give props under any circumstances whatsoever.

At the SOTU, Obama mentions that in the past year it was made possible that Bin Laden will never walk the earth again and a bunch of them just sat there with these looks on their faces like, "Fuck you, Obama...".

When the Democrats were blaming Bush for the things they were blaming him for, those were real things. No WMD's....real thing. Misleading us into war....real thing. Putting both wars on the credit card while cutting taxes for the wealthy.....real thing. Putting Medicare Part D on the charge card as well....real thing.

When the Republicans blame Obama for everything, it's totally make-believe nonsense. According to them, Dodd-Frank, signed by Obama in July 2010 was thereby responsible for the crash of 2008. He "thinks like a Kenyan". He's a direct disciple of Saul Alinsky. On foreign policy he's "an appeaser". It's one line of total bullshit after another adding up to a portrait of someone who isn't anything like Obama.

When 9/11 happened and Bush gave that speech in NY with the firefighters, he shot up to 91% approval for a couple weeks there.

I'm sorry, but that would never, ever, never happen under a Democrat because the hate is much stronger on the other side. Any kind of national emergency or crisis that comes up, Democrats will simply give their trust over to a Republican President while with a guy like Obama there will always be that one-third of the room that simply hates him because he's got a D next to his name. If 9/11 happens, Obama would get upwards of 65%, but the haters would hate him no matter what, just look at the way they've behaved towards him thus far. Total disrespect at every turn. I mean, who makes a deal with a sitting President only to back out at the last minute because your party simply will not compromise in order to forge consensus with the man?

Originally Posted by MattInFla

In a TODAY exclusive, Matt Lauer asked Obama about his supporters' disappointment over his first-term performance — that they believe he hasn't been "the transformational political figure they hoped you would be."
"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008," he said.
"That's just the nature of being president," he said. "It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes."

Obama on presidency:

I thought Obama was a Constitutional scholar. Has he discovered some new information about the system that he didn't previously learn as a constitutional law professor?

Or is this yet another blame game from the President?

Unsure this means anything other than what Obama said, a sort of general frustration in dealing with House Republicans that do not blindly just support whatever the hell Obama wants to do. If anything, he was just trying to be cute with the founding fathers bit but doubt he really intended for it to mean much else. That being said, this will end up similar to Democrats love affair with taking things out of context. This comment on the founding fathers will be subject to the Republicans doing the exact same thing with it. Democrats will not be able to bitch much about it as they all do this.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

WOW, a Catholic who lost in 2010 says she wouldn't vote for the bill because of her dogma...I'm shocked...

Well, George W. Bush's former speechwriter was fired by the right wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) because he told the truth about the health care bill. Republicans made a collective decision BEFORE any legislative process:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

Waterloo | FrumForum

And then we also find out from Bruce Bartlett:

AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

And all that is why the leaders of the Dem party had to buy Dem votes to pass Obamacare. And now that Obamacare is passed 30 states are suing to kill it. And did you notice how Obama patted himself on the back over Obamacare in the state of the union.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Rock stupid. The amazing thing is that some people are so stupid they think voting for that oxygen thief AGAIN is a good idea.

The only way to avoid voting for an oxygen thief this year is to stay home.

As for the OP, the President's comment was clearly made tounge in cheek.

Spinning it in any other direction is rock stupid.

Originally Posted by Forplay

And all that is why the leaders of the Dem party had to buy Dem votes to pass Obamacare. And now that Obamacare is passed 30 states are suing to kill it. And did you notice how Obama patted himself on the back over Obamacare in the state of the union.

The Affordable Healthcare Act is a very good law in the framework of a market based 'for profit' system of insurance providers. It is for all intents and purposes a Republican bill. Republicans lied at the beginning and they are still lying. You believe them. Their 'talk' of repeal is propaganda. And Republicans have really painted themselves into a corner. If the 'Individual Mandate' is struck down, then the only real solution is a government run single payer plan. The 'Individual Mandate' was a Republican idea, and there is no fucking way Republicans will do anything to take away from insurance cartels. The GOP is WHOLLY owned by corporations.

The process of passing the bill (appeasing blue dogs like Senator Ben Nelson) was an indication that the corporations even have enough Democrats to control Congress.

That fact should cause you concern, but I surmise it won't.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

The Affordable Healthcare Act is a very good law in the framework of a market based 'for profit' system of insurance providers. It is for all intents and purposes a Republican bill. Republicans lied at the beginning and they are still lying. You believe them. Their 'talk' of repeal is propaganda. And Republicans have really painted themselves into a corner. If the 'Individual Mandate' is struck down, then the only real solution is a government run single payer plan. The 'Individual Mandate' was a Republican idea, and there is no fucking way Republicans will do anything to take away from insurance cartels. The GOP is WHOLLY owned by corporations.

The process of passing the bill (appeasing blue dogs like Senator Ben Nelson) was an indication that the corporations even have enough Democrats to control Congress.

That fact should cause you concern, but I surmise it won't.

Wrong, Romneycare does not represent the Republican party, 30 states suing to kill Obamacare speaks loudly that we don't want this piece of crap legislation. It is really hard for you to understand because your so blinded by your worship of Obama.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Wrong, Romneycare does not represent the Republican party, 30 states suing to kill Obamacare speaks loudly that we don't want this piece of crap legislation. It is really hard for you to understand because your so blinded by your worship of Obama.

OK, tell me what is bad about the law, what you would eliminate and what you would change.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Wrong, Romneycare does not represent the Republican party, 30 states suing to kill Obamacare speaks loudly that we don't want this piece of crap legislation. It is really hard for you to understand because your so blinded by your worship of Obama.

Romneycare should represent the Republican party though.

I wouldn't pull the lever for him in a primary election nor would I want to live in a state with Romneycare but the latter is really an example of how our government is legally supposed to work. We're supposed to be a nation of 50 individual states with a weak centralized government that ensures basic human rights and protection. We're supposed to be deciding these things at the state level as opposed to the federal level, a la Obamacare.

State rights really works to benefit everyone, especially in such a polarized country. At this point in our history any major legislation is going to be voted on by party lines and half the country is going to be dissatisfied. We should be doing things at a state level so the people in Arizona can be just as happy to be an American as the people in Massachusetts and vice versa.