New book says Obama "in over his head"

[Shooter]

Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Ron Suskind has published a book that accuses Obama of being in-over-his-head, as well as an extremely poor leader. Nothing new to lots of us, but it could be an eye-opener for some of the devoted . . .

A recurring theme is Obama’s utter failure of leadership. The president is incapable of making a decision; on the rare occasion when he does, he is ignored, as in the Citi case.

When Emanuel forced Summers and Orszag to make up, Summers blasted Obama. “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone here … I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.”

The major takeaway from the book is about how quickly it became clear that Obama was out of his league running the administration.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles...romronsuskindsbook.dailybeast/?cid=hero_media

 

[BrianFromWA]

How does this change? If you thought these things before, it's confirmation? Back-pat time? If you were one of the "devoted", you're not going to all-of-a-sudden say "Holy crap! I guess if Suskind wrote this stuff, then I've been blind to this guy's myriad faults!"

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

big shocker.

 

[Shooter]

If you were one of the "devoted", you're not going to all-of-a-sudden say "Holy crap! I guess if Suskind wrote this stuff, then I've been blind to this guy's myriad faults!"

Actually, the "devoted" have been abandoning Obama in droves lately, or haven't you noticed? Many on the Left were already bemoaning his lack of backbone long before this book came out. Ron Suskind is a well-respected reporter who has written some very critical articles on George W. Bush, so this book carries a lot of weight.

 

[bluefrog]

I am a defeated man. The undeniable facts and portrayal of Obama in this book have shattered my world view. There is nothing left to do but lick our wounds and coward like the dogs we are.

You and other like-minded individuals were, as always, right all along. Please have patience with us "lib-tards". We will learn eventually, I promise.

 

[Mediocre Man]

So what is this guy, a racist. conservative or someone with some other agenda? I am sure someone will start crying that it has to be one of them

 

[Shooter]

I am a defeated man. The undeniable facts and portrayal of Obama in this book have shattered my world view. There is nothing left to do but lick our wounds and coward like the dogs we are.

Perhaps you mean "cower"?

You and other like-minded individuals were, as always, right all along. Please have patience with us "lib-tards". We will learn eventually, I promise.

I wish I had confidence in you, but liberals have proven over and over again that they are incapable of learning a great many things.

 

[barfo]

Ron Suskind is a well-respected reporter who has written some very critical articles on George W. Bush, so this book carries a lot of weight.

And did his critical articles on George Bush change your mind about Bush?

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

Perhaps you mean "cower"?


I wish I had confidence in you, but liberals have proven over and over again that they are incapable of learning a great many things.

You're absolutely right. I did mean "cower".

Liberals like me aren't only bad spellers (and by extension really stupid) we're also lazy, elitist, unpatriotic, immoral, freedom-hating, hypocrites who live in fantasy land. Unfortunately the burden lies on people like you, Shooter, to show us the "real" facts to help us understand why the world is the way it is. I know you take your hits for saying what you believe but after being right SO many times it sinks in for people like me. I no longer identify with those dumb-asses who come back after a semester of college and spit out the same dog shit that their liberal professors fed them and try to pass it off as their own.

You, sir, are an intellectual giant. I "cower" before you. (See, lib-tards CAN learn some things!)

 

[Denny Crane]

I am a defeated man. The undeniable facts and portrayal of Obama in this book have shattered my world view. There is nothing left to do but lick our wounds and coward like the dogs we are.

You and other like-minded individuals were, as always, right all along. Please have patience with us "lib-tards". We will learn eventually, I promise.

I hear 97% of scientists polled say he's in over his head, too.

I expected his lack of experience to be a big problem for him, but I also hoped he would get his act together after a couple of years of on the job training. It worked for the governor of a small state, and things turned out very well.

What Clinton didn't do while learning the job was to bury us in debt.

 

[PapaG]

Gee, a guy who had never run so much as a lemonade stand before in his life is in over his head as President of the USA, and doesn't know how to lead?

I'm shocked!!!

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Gee, a guy who had never run so much as a lemonade stand before in his life is in over his head as President of the USA, and doesn't know how to lead?

I'm shocked!!!

I know. Who could have seen this coming?

 

[jlprk]

No more doddering fools. We need a clear-thinking president who's not submerged over his head, like Ford, Reagan, or Bush.

There's nothing to do now but hand the country over to Republicans, to privatize Social Security and health care with shares in the stock market. The US will be competitive again when we productive people rid ourselves of everyone over 65.

The average life expectancy has risen 10 years since Medicare because...computers and microwaves have really improved.

 

[bluefrog]

I hear 97% of scientists polled say he's in over his head, too.

Political science is based on faulty polling models. To accurately predict politics you need to know what every person has ever thought about anything. You have to consider the ideas of a butterfly in China to predict an election in Odessa, Texas.

I expected his lack of experience to be a big problem for him, but I also hoped he would get his act together after a couple of years of on the job training. It worked for the governor of a small state, and things turned out very well.

What Clinton didn't do while learning the job was to bury us in debt.

Obama is, as we like to say in these parts, up shit creek with a turd for a paddle. He's got a strongly divided political landscape, three wars, and an economy in the shitter. It will take a miracle to get us out of this.

He is "in over his head" but he doesn't realize he is "in over his head". There hasn't been a "deer-in-headlights" moment like W sitting in front of the class as the US was being attacked by hijacked airplanes. He's made confident decisions but apparently they haven't been the right decisions.

He'll have the chance to turn it around. It's his job to loose.

 

[julius]

three wars?

 

[PapaG]

He is "in over his head" but he doesn't realize he is "in over his head". There hasn't been a "deer-in-headlights" moment like W sitting in front of the class as the US was being attacked by hijacked airplanes. He's made confident decisions but apparently they haven't been the right decisions.

He'll have the chance to turn it around. It's his job to loose.

Yes, what Michael Moore taught all of us from that reaction is that the President should bolt from the room, without being briefed fully, and don a cape to save the world.

Now, watch this drive!!!

Remember the bad old days of 4.6% unemployment in 2006 before the Dems took over the House and Senate in 1/2007 (President Failbama was a part of that spectacular freshman class in the Senate). What spending cuts did Barack advocate during his time in the Senate? What has the UE rate done since he was sworn in as President while the annual deficit has literally tripled?

 

[julius]

remember when there was a surplus back in 2000? Me too.

 

[PapaG]

remember when there was a surplus back in 2000? Me too.

Remember when there was a surplus in 2001? Me too.

Remember what happened to the debt and deficit once the Dems gained control of congress in 2007, and the presidency in 2009? Me too.

Your Dems are even bailing ship on this loser, yet he's literally willing to double down with money that he doesn't even have.

 

[Denny Crane]

Political science is based on faulty polling models. To accurately predict politics you need to know what every person has ever thought about anything. You have to consider the ideas of a butterfly in China to predict an election in Odessa, Texas.

Close enough. The polls are something like the scoreboard so we can get a sense of who's winning and who's losing. The only poll that ultimately matters is the vote by the electoral college.

Obama is, as we like to say in these parts, up shit creek with a turd for a paddle. He's got a strongly divided political landscape, three wars, and an economy in the shitter. It will take a miracle to get us out of this.

He is "in over his head" but he doesn't realize he is "in over his head". There hasn't been a "deer-in-headlights" moment like W sitting in front of the class as the US was being attacked by hijacked airplanes. He's made confident decisions but apparently they haven't been the right decisions.

He'll have the chance to turn it around. It's his job to loose.

What do you think Bush should have done?

[video=youtube;QP1K84iRZPo]

 

[bluefrog]

What do you think Bush should have done?

I don't know. What do you think he should have done?

I was just using that situation to juxtapose two presidents " in over their head"

 

[jlprk]

Remember when there was a surplus in 2001? Me too.

--Ah yes, the first couple months of the Bush Administration living on Clinton's budget. Then came the 10-year tax cut for the rich and the surplus was blown up before the Trade Towers were.

Remember what happened to the debt and deficit once the Dems gained control of congress in 2007, and the presidency in 2009? Me too.

--That made the nation face up to Bush's false housing bubble that had hidden how he ruined the economy. Good thing they didn't take over any later or it'd be a lot worse now.

Your Dems are even bailing ship on this loser, yet he's literally willing to double down with money that he doesn't even have.

--I forgot. Did national debt triple or only double under Bush?

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know. What do you think he should have done?

I was just using that situation to juxtapose two presidents " in over their head"

I think he didn't want to panic the children, and there wasn't much he could do immediately that his staff wasn't already doing (getting information about what was going on).

I don't think they were going to let air force one fly until every plane in the sky either landed or was accounted for.

This was pretty good:

[video=youtube;x7OCgMPX2mE]

 

[Denny Crane]

--Ah yes, the first couple months of the Bush Administration living on Clinton's budget. Then came the 10-year tax cut for the rich and the surplus was blown up before the Trade Towers were.

This has been proven wrong here at least once, yet you keep repeating it. Do you think it will ever be true or something?

 

[PapaG]

--Ah yes, the first couple months of the Bush Administration living on Clinton's budget.

What happened to Obama's budget? Last I saw, his latest attempt was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Has he even had a real budget that has been passed during his term, other than a continuation without parameters?

 

[julius]

Remember when there was a surplus in 2001? Me too.

Remember what happened to the debt and deficit once the Dems gained control of congress in 2007, and the presidency in 2009? Me too.

Your Dems are even bailing ship on this loser, yet he's literally willing to double down with money that he doesn't even have.

my point is only an idiot thinks it's solely the fault of the president or those who are in charge of the senate and house.

 

[PapaG]

my point is only an idiot thinks it's solely the fault of the president or those who are in charge of the senate and house.

My point is that shit starting going off the rails when Barry and the other freshmen joined the 2007 congress. Bush clearly played a big role, but the Dem House and Senate had to approve every spending bill during that time, including funding the wars.

Also, the amazing thing about this book is that Obama apparently was interviewed for it for 6 hours by the author, and it's in the book. I can't wait to see those quotes!

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama was elected, but I don't think he showed up for work. He was busy running for president.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama's making Palin look good. Wow.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/20/v-fullstory/2417008/poll-finds-obama-losing-ground.html

Poll finds Obama losing ground to Republicans

A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that Obama looks increasingly vulnerable in next year's election, with a majority of voters believing he'll lose to any Republican, a solid plurality saying they'll definitely vote against him and most potential Republican challengers gaining on him.

Even in potential matchups where he leads, Obama in most cases has lost ground to the Republican.

The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn't yet announced whether she'll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Wait a second...

I can understand independents not voting for Obama, but what in their right mind is turning them toward Palin? Has she cured cancer or efficiently engineered solar power while I wasn't paying attention?

 

[julius]

Wait a second...

I can understand independents not voting for Obama, but what in their right mind is turning them toward Palin? Has she cured cancer or efficiently engineered solar power while I wasn't paying attention?

People will say outlandish things like that, because it builds confidence in the base party.

Basically they're trying to tell their vocal base that Obama is so bad that independents are turning towards crazy lady over him! You should be confident that he's going to lose.

The same was done to Bush (and others) where they'd say that "X candidate has lost Y voting base, and they'd rather vote for extreme candidate Z".

The people saying it don't actually believe it (or if they do, they don't understand what it truly means to be independent). They just know it benefits their belief system and base.