Boehner Dealt Bitter Defeat

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

A clear sign that your party is in trouble is when John McCain is considered one of the responsible ones.

barfo
 
Because without reading the proposal it was DOA according to news reports. Now, to be sure, they knew the nuts & bolts of it but from what I can sense, they simply weren't going to even consider it without massive tax increases. And there in lies maybe the main issue. The left insists on tax increases and the right insists on fiscal accountability. Neither side is willing to budge.

I think you haven't been paying attention. Revenue increases of all types are, according to all reports in the last several days, off the table. They aren't part of the current democratic proposals. The dems have given in / compromised on that.

barfo
 
Strong physical resemblance between William Shatner and Chris Christie according to images in this thread.

barfo
 
FWIW, the Reid plan is the right framework. It is flawed because it doesn't cut enough, and because Reid claims cuts that may or may not happen (bring the troops home when he claims). Reid and Democrats need to come up with the right amount of real cuts, and THEN it'd be on republicans if it doesn't pass.
 
Ouch. Maureen Dowd pulls no punches.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/dowd-tempest-in-a-tea-party.html?_r=1


Democratic lawmakers worry that the Tea Party freshmen have already “neutered” the president, as one told me. They fret that Obama is an inept negotiator. They worry that he should have been out in the country selling a concrete plan, rather than once more kowtowing to Republicans and, as with the stimulus plan, health care and Libya, leading from behind.

As one Democratic senator complained: “The president veers between talking like a peevish professor and a scolding parent.” (Not to mention a jilted lover.) Another moaned: “We are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes.”

Obama’s “We must lift ourselves to a higher place” trope doesn’t work on this rough crowd. If somebody at dinner is about to kill you, you don’t worry about his table manners.
 
Ouch. Maureen Dowd pulls no punches.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/dowd-tempest-in-a-tea-party.html?_r=1


Democratic lawmakers worry that the Tea Party freshmen have already “neutered” the president, as one told me. They fret that Obama is an inept negotiator. They worry that he should have been out in the country selling a concrete plan, rather than once more kowtowing to Republicans and, as with the stimulus plan, health care and Libya, leading from behind.

As one Democratic senator complained: “The president veers between talking like a peevish professor and a scolding parent.” (Not to mention a jilted lover.) Another moaned: “We are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes.”

Obama’s “We must lift ourselves to a higher place” trope doesn’t work on this rough crowd. If somebody at dinner is about to kill you, you don’t worry about his table manners.

Well, for all his dash and charm when speaking, he has proven to be an inept leader and equally inept negotiator. Leadership & negotiating are two of his lesser qualities.
 
Good thing his job doesn't require those traits.
 
Well, for all his dash and charm when speaking, he has proven to be an inept leader and equally inept negotiator. Leadership & negotiating are two of his lesser qualities.

Because ordering a military attack on foreign soil to finally get bin Laden doesn't take leadership . . .
 
Today 8:36 PM 'Significant Progress'
The AP reports:

WASHINGTON – Officials say the White House and Republican leaders in Congress are making significant progress toward a last-minute agreement to avoid a default threatened for next week.

These officials say the two sides are discussing a plan to raise the debt limit by about $2.4 trillion and enact spending cuts of a slightly larger amount in two stages.

The deal under discussion would also require Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but not require its approval.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the discussions.
 
Because ordering a military attack on foreign soil to finally get bin Laden doesn't take leadership . . .

It's sort of worthless responding to this "barfoism", but out of respect I'll bite and give the obligatory answer- every President has to execute leadership. Every President makes some good decisions during their time- it's inevitable. But, in general, Obama has failed as a leader and negotiator. But so did Bush & Clinton.
 
Today 8:36 PM 'Significant Progress'
The AP reports:

WASHINGTON – Officials say the White House and Republican leaders in Congress are making significant progress toward a last-minute agreement to avoid a default threatened for next week.

These officials say the two sides are discussing a plan to raise the debt limit by about $2.4 trillion and enact spending cuts of a slightly larger amount in two stages.

The deal under discussion would also require Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but not require its approval.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the discussions.

Good news.
 
As the Republican Party disintegrates in front of us, we wonder whether it will take the economy down with it...

Boehner simply cannot lead
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...fidence-vote/2011/07/29/gIQAGoEqgI_story.html

Sharon Angle attacks John McCain
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60114.html

Yeah, Boehner has had his hands full with the more radical Republicans. They have adopted a pretty staunch line. On the other hand, they ran on a specific platform and I think feel their election created a mandate for them.
 
It's sort of worthless responding to this "barfoism", but out of respect I'll bite and give the obligatory answer- every President has to execute leadership. Every President makes some good decisions during their time- it's inevitable. But, in general, Obama has failed as a leader and negotiator. But so did Bush & Clinton.

Hate to waste your time with worthless responding, but when someone makes a worthless general statement like he X is inept leader when he has in fact demonstrated leadership qualities I felt the need to respond (lol at saying every president is bound to make a good decision . . . like Obama got lucky . . . he only made the call to atttack in pakistan and got the most wanted man alive after almost a decade hunt . . . but inevitable he will make that kind of decision and doesn't show any leadership)

We will see if American agrees that Obama is an inept leader, I'm guessing not.
 
Last edited:
Hate to waste your time with worthless responding, but when someone makes a worthless general statement like he X is inept leader when he has in fact demonstrated leadership qualities I felt the need to respond (lol at saying every president is bound to make a good decision . . . like Obama got lucky . . . he only made the call to atttack in pakistan and got the most wanted man alive after almost a decade hunt . . . but inevitable he will make that kind of decision and doesn't show any leadership)

We will see if American agrees that Obama is an inept leader, I'm guessing not.

[video]http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-situation-room-cold-open/1327352/[/video]
 
Hate to waste your time with worthless responding, but when someone makes a worthless general statement like he X is inept leader when he has in fact demonstrated leadership qualities I felt the need to respond (lol at saying every president is bound to make a good decision . . . like Obama got lucky . . . he only made the call to atttack in pakistan and got the most wanted man alive after almost a decade hunt . . . but inevitable he will make that kind of decision and doesn't show any leadership)

We will see if American agrees that Obama is an inept leader, I'm guessing not.

If you're referring to whether or not he gets reelected (I can't tell if you are or not), leadership has nothing to do with it. I mean, Clinton & Bush got reelected and I anticipate Obama probably will to.
 
Hate to waste your time with worthless responding, but when someone makes a worthless general statement like he X is inept leader when he has in fact demonstrated leadership qualities I felt the need to respond (lol at saying every president is bound to make a good decision . . . like Obama got lucky . . . he only made the call to atttack in pakistan and got the most wanted man alive after almost a decade hunt . . . but inevitable he will make that kind of decision and doesn't show any leadership)

We will see if American agrees that Obama is an inept leader, I'm guessing not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-empty-bully-pulpit_b_913346.html

Robert Reich
Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, 'Aftershock'

The Empty Bully Pulpit

But another part of the answer lies with the president -- and his inability or unwillingness to use the bully pulpit to tell Americans the truth, and mobilize them for what must be done.

Barack Obama is one of the most eloquent and intelligent people ever to grace the White House, which makes his failure to tell the story of our era all the more disappointing and puzzling. Many who were drawn to him in 2008 (including me) were dazzled by the power of his words and insights -- his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, his autobiography and subsequent policy book, his talks about race and other divisive issues during the campaign.

We were excited by the prospect of a leader who could educate -- an "educator in chief" who would use the bully pulpit to explain what has happened to the United States in recent decades, where we must go, and why.

But the man who has occupied the Oval Office since January, 2009 is someone entirely different -- a man seemingly without a compass, a tactician who veers rightward one day and leftward the next, an inside-the Beltway dealmaker who doesn't explain his compromises in light of larger goals.

In his inaugural address, Obama warned that "the nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." In private, he professes to understand that the growing concentration of income and wealth at the top has robbed the middle class of the purchasing power it needs to keep the economy going. And it has distorted our politics.

He is well aware that the Great Recession wiped out $7.8 trillion of home values, crushing the nest eggs and eliminating the collateral that had allowed the middle class to keep spending despite declining real wages -- a decrease in consumption that's directly responsible for the anemic recovery.

But instead of explaining this to the American people, he joins the GOP in making a fetish of reducing the budget deficit, and enters into a hair-raising game of chicken with House Republicans over whether the debt ceiling will be raised.

Never once does he tell the public why reducing the deficit has become his number one economic priority. Americans can only conclude that the Republicans must be correct -- that diminishing the deficit will somehow revive economic growth and restore jobs.

Instead of powerful explanations we get the type of bromides that issue from every White House. America must "win the future," Obama says, by which he means making public investments in infrastructure, education, and basic R&D. But then he submits a budget proposal that would cut non-defense discretionary spending (of which these investments constitute more than half) to its lowest level as a share of gross domestic product in over half a century.

A president can be forgiven for compromising, if his supporters understand why he is doing so. That the health-care law doesn't include a public option, that financial reform doesn't limit the size of the biggest Wall Street banks, even that cuts may have to be made to Medicare or Social Security -- all could be accepted in light of the practical necessities of politics, if only we understood where the president is leading us.

Why is Obama not using the bully pulpit? Perhaps he's too embroiled in the tactical maneuvers that pass for policy making in Washington, or too intent on preserving political capital for the next skirmish, or cynical about how the media will relay or distort his message. He may also disdain the repetition necessary to break through the noise and drive home the larger purpose of his presidency. I have known (and worked for) presidents who succumbed to all these, at least for a time.

A more disturbing explanation is that he simply lacks the courage to tell the truth. He wants most of all to be seen as a responsible adult rather than a fighter. As such, he allows himself to be trapped by situations -- the debt-ceiling imbroglio most recently -- within which he tries to offer reasonable responses, rather than be the leader who shapes the circumstances from the start.

Obama cannot mobilize America around the truth, in other words, because he is continuously adapting to the prevailing view. This is not leadership.
 
Latest:

POLITICO Breaking News
-------------------------------------------------
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says the White House and Hill Republicans are "very close" to a $3 trillion debt ceiling deal that would include a two-step process to approve an immediate hike in the nation's borrowing power and a second vote later that would require two-thirds of Congress to disapprove of a new increase. The process, McConnell told CNN, would fulfill Obama's demand that any deal take him "through the next election" and include a bipartisan commission to recommend new cuts and revenue enhancement that would report its findings by Thanksgiving.
 
Anything less than $4T isn't going to be enough. They know it, but they just can't come to agreement of how to get to that $4T. The result will be that a downgrade will eat up any of the cuts we make in the higher rates we're going to have to pay on our debt.

A pox on all their houses: Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and Obama. The only people that have led have been the Tea Partiers.
 
Various Republicans that compromised probably wanted more spending cuts. They just realized that the tea party's demands weren't realistic.

The whole point was to avoid a credit downgrade though, so lol.
 
Last edited:
Anything less than $4T isn't going to be enough. They know it, but they just can't come to agreement of how to get to that $4T. The result will be that a downgrade will eat up any of the cuts we make in the higher rates we're going to have to pay on our debt.

A pox on all their houses: Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and Obama. The only people that have led have been the Tea Partiers.

The Tea Party is your Lakers and you are the Laker fan. I bet you have a Lakersground type Tea Party forum you are cheating on us with.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-empty-bully-pulpit_b_913346.html

Robert Reich
Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, 'Aftershock'

The Empty Bully Pulpit

But another part of the answer lies with the president -- and his inability or unwillingness to use the bully pulpit to tell Americans the truth, and mobilize them for what must be done.

Barack Obama is one of the most eloquent and intelligent people ever to grace the White House, which makes his failure to tell the story of our era all the more disappointing and puzzling. Many who were drawn to him in 2008 (including me) were dazzled by the power of his words and insights -- his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, his autobiography and subsequent policy book, his talks about race and other divisive issues during the campaign.

We were excited by the prospect of a leader who could educate -- an "educator in chief" who would use the bully pulpit to explain what has happened to the United States in recent decades, where we must go, and why.

But the man who has occupied the Oval Office since January, 2009 is someone entirely different -- a man seemingly without a compass, a tactician who veers rightward one day and leftward the next, an inside-the Beltway dealmaker who doesn't explain his compromises in light of larger goals.

In his inaugural address, Obama warned that "the nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." In private, he professes to understand that the growing concentration of income and wealth at the top has robbed the middle class of the purchasing power it needs to keep the economy going. And it has distorted our politics.

He is well aware that the Great Recession wiped out $7.8 trillion of home values, crushing the nest eggs and eliminating the collateral that had allowed the middle class to keep spending despite declining real wages -- a decrease in consumption that's directly responsible for the anemic recovery.

But instead of explaining this to the American people, he joins the GOP in making a fetish of reducing the budget deficit, and enters into a hair-raising game of chicken with House Republicans over whether the debt ceiling will be raised.

Never once does he tell the public why reducing the deficit has become his number one economic priority. Americans can only conclude that the Republicans must be correct -- that diminishing the deficit will somehow revive economic growth and restore jobs.

Instead of powerful explanations we get the type of bromides that issue from every White House. America must "win the future," Obama says, by which he means making public investments in infrastructure, education, and basic R&D. But then he submits a budget proposal that would cut non-defense discretionary spending (of which these investments constitute more than half) to its lowest level as a share of gross domestic product in over half a century.

A president can be forgiven for compromising, if his supporters understand why he is doing so. That the health-care law doesn't include a public option, that financial reform doesn't limit the size of the biggest Wall Street banks, even that cuts may have to be made to Medicare or Social Security -- all could be accepted in light of the practical necessities of politics, if only we understood where the president is leading us.

Why is Obama not using the bully pulpit? Perhaps he's too embroiled in the tactical maneuvers that pass for policy making in Washington, or too intent on preserving political capital for the next skirmish, or cynical about how the media will relay or distort his message. He may also disdain the repetition necessary to break through the noise and drive home the larger purpose of his presidency. I have known (and worked for) presidents who succumbed to all these, at least for a time.

A more disturbing explanation is that he simply lacks the courage to tell the truth. He wants most of all to be seen as a responsible adult rather than a fighter. As such, he allows himself to be trapped by situations -- the debt-ceiling imbroglio most recently -- within which he tries to offer reasonable responses, rather than be the leader who shapes the circumstances from the start.

Obama cannot mobilize America around the truth, in other words, because he is continuously adapting to the prevailing view. This is not leadership.

The right cannot handle the truth, and Obama cannot win in their eyes either way. If he uses the bully he is considered arrogant and elite. If he doesn't he is considered weak and lacking leadership. If he doesn't give them both they do nothing for him, if he gives them both the do something for him. The Tea Party is one of the most immature childish movements in our nations history, they rival the hippies just have less fun and sex. In a way what he is doing is in fact leadership, but it is the cowardly sort that allows things to move ahead without making the children mad. Otherwise they say that government is terrible and keep your hands off their medicare in the same sentence.
 
The right cannot handle the truth, and Obama cannot win in their eyes either way. If he uses the bully he is considered arrogant and elite. If he doesn't he is considered weak and lacking leadership. If he doesn't give them both they do nothing for him, if he gives them both the do something for him. The Tea Party is one of the most immature childish movements in our nations history, they rival the hippies just have less fun and sex. In a way what he is doing is in fact leadership, but it is the cowardly sort that allows things to move ahead without making the children mad. Otherwise they say that government is terrible and keep your hands off their medicare in the same sentence.

Robert Reich was Labor Secretary for Clinton, is a left wing blogger, and the article was from HuffPost. What does that have to do with "the right?"

In any case, lefties like to talk about taking back the government, and they can't handle it when a populist Tea Party movement is actually doing it.
 
In any case, lefties like to talk about taking back the government, and they can't handle it when a populist Tea Party movement is actually doing it.

Yeah, they probably wouldn't like it if a populist movement like the KKK gained influence in the government, either. It's not really a matter of wanting someone, anyone, to "take back government." Obviously, it's about taking back government with their principles, for them. As it is with any group.
 
The right cannot handle the truth, and Obama cannot win in their eyes either way. If he uses the bully he is considered arrogant and elite. If he doesn't he is considered weak and lacking leadership. If he doesn't give them both they do nothing for him, if he gives them both the do something for him. The Tea Party is one of the most immature childish movements in our nations history, they rival the hippies just have less fun and sex. In a way what he is doing is in fact leadership, but it is the cowardly sort that allows things to move ahead without making the children mad. Otherwise they say that government is terrible and keep your hands off their medicare in the same sentence.

It's wrong thinking attitudes like this that have nearly shut down the government.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top