Obama to GOP: 'I won'

Quote:but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Sure sounds like politics as usual.

Obama's definition of "Bipartisanship":

Republicans give in now or I'll screw you worse on the floor of the House and Senate and sign whatever Pelosi and Reid send me.

.

Quote:Does Obama Lack Tact to be Bipartisan?

I believe he is a Vapid, Characterless Wonk who doesn't have a clue outside his own ambitions and lies.

.

I'm glad you've talked to him personally.

(01-24-2009 11:07 AM)Tripster Wrote:  

Quote:Does Obama Lack Tact to be Bipartisan?

I believe he is a Vapid, Characterless Wonk who doesn't have a clue outside his own ambitions and lies.

At this point, I won't agree absolutely with you, primarily becuase we lack sufficient evidence to make that as a final determination.

But the sum total of everything I've seen so far suggests to me that you are on the right track.

(01-24-2009 12:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I'm glad you've talked to him personally.

Talking to him personally his words and, um, lack of actions, would mean something differant?

And yes he has no character. He has writen books discribing how he sought out radicals in his life, now denies (lies) about knowing his friends were radicals. I mean HE'S WRITEN ABOUT IT IN BOOKS.

(01-24-2009 10:17 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Obama's definition of "Bipartisanship":
Republicans give in now or I'll screw you worse on the floor of the House and Senate and sign whatever Pelosi and Reid send me.

Agree.

So what should the republicans do?

Obama obviously wants to toss them a bone or two, get them to sign on, and pass this as some "bipartisan" effort. Then he has a bully pulpit to go to the American people and say, "support this or you're unpatriotic." We're already seeing that.

What I think the republicans should do is to come up with an alternative, tell Obama that if he wants their votes he has to give them a significant portion, and if he doesn't (which he won't) then let things come down to a straight party-line vote. Then when things crater (and they will, because the Obama "plan" doesn't have a ghost of a chance to solve the real problems) the democrats will have nobody to blame but themselves. Do you want to crash and get it over with, or do you want to be nibbled to death by ducks? I vote for crash and get it over with. I'm afraid the republicans are going to have us nibbled to death by ducks, just as under the Shrub administration.

As for a patriotic obligation to support the Obama plan, Americans are under the same patriotic obligation to support that plan as they were to support the war in Iraq--or Vietnam. When things go as badly for the economic plan as they did in Iraq or Vietnam, if not worse, voicing opposition is not unpatriotic.

I've read several articles about the proposition that conservatives have better ideas, but liberals have better people. I think there's some value to that idea. Obama has been elected president because he is a more attractive personality than McCain (or, probably more properly, Shrub). If Obama ran agianst either Shrub or McCain (or Hillary, but not Bill), and personality were the only issue, I'd vote for Obama.

The republicans have tried to fight the personality fight instead of the idea fight. They will usually lose the personality fight, although arguably Shrub won twice becuase he was a more likeable guy than Gore or Kerry. The last time republicans really fought the idea battle was the 1994 congressional elections, when they won spectacularly. Unfortunately they got so busy hating Bill Clinton (who was personally likeable, and whom I liked) that they forgot to stay on track. The republicans need a new Contract With America, and then they need to get on message and stay there.

It is one thing to say that the Obama plan makes no sense. It is a better thing to say that the Obama plan makes no sense, but here is an alternative that does. The republicans don't have that alternative now. Until they do, they are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

(01-24-2009 10:17 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Obama's definition of "Bipartisanship":

Republicans give in now or I'll screw you worse on the floor of the House and Senate and sign whatever Pelosi and Reid send me.

You mean like giving more money to blue states than red states? I agree. You guys(not incl those in Texass) in the red states have stolen money from the blue states for years.

(01-24-2009 11:07 AM)Tripster Wrote:  .

Quote:Does Obama Lack Tact to be Bipartisan?

I believe he is a Vapid, Characterless Wonk who doesn't have a clue outside his own ambitions and lies.

.

Odd, I could say the same about you.

(01-24-2009 01:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-24-2009 11:07 AM)Tripster Wrote:  .

Quote:Does Obama Lack Tact to be Bipartisan?

I believe he is a Vapid, Characterless Wonk who doesn't have a clue outside his own ambitions and lies.

.

Odd, I could say the same about you.

You could. Good thing you didn't though because it would make you look foolish. Missed a bullet there. Good to see you are learning when to be silent.

(01-24-2009 12:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I'm glad you've talked to him personally.

"WE HAVE BEEN DELIEVERED Jan 20 2009" or haven't you heard yet ??? We all talk to god'Bama personally thru our Mental Channeling (funny I keep getting the F'ck'd Up Station, but oh well)

And my wittle bwuddy Robert .....

(01-24-2009 01:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Odd, I could say the same about you.

Oh how you try to insult but your stupidity just overshadows your meager attempts.

Keep trying and one day when you grow up, you may succeed ....



.

(01-24-2009 01:23 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-24-2009 10:17 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Obama's definition of "Bipartisanship":

Republicans give in now or I'll screw you worse on the floor of the House and Senate and sign whatever Pelosi and Reid send me.

You mean like giving more money to blue states than red states? I agree. You guys(not incl those in Texass) in the red states have stolen money from the blue states for years.

Not to be annoying...but...The theft occurs on individuals not states.