Another O-Rookie Mistake

Add this below to the "I won" comment and I think it's safe to say Obama is getting some serious on the job training which, hopefully will serve him well down the line. My chief concern at this point is that a certain arrogance won't allow that. Time will tell. Was "I won" sort of a "Mission accomplished" moment which Bush recently said he regretted? I think a case could be made.

Also in his first closed door meeting which included Republicans, Obama either elevated a radio pundit / entertainer, or diminished his Presidency to round up a rather amateurish and ego driven first few days. This is a man who has not yet learned the import of his words, or come to appreciate that even a glowing media filter won't prevent them from getting out.

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

The job of a legislature is not to "get along." It is to produce sound laws and policies. For now, the stimulus bill in question doesn't appear to be that.

Comments

[Lala (shill for Dan)]

I'm reading "Ten Days That Shook The World" (November, 1917 when Lenin and the Bolsheviks finally seized power)

"It is impossible to teach the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviki anything! he exclaimed. "They compromise from sheer habit. Imagine! They proposed that we hold a joint funeral with the yunkers (opposition)"

Getting along is inbred, I guess.

[mark l.]

pride goeth before the fall.

When he stumbles, and they all stumble, he is just making it harder to get back up.

[mark l.]

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

translation:
'please, pretty please don't vote en mass against my spending bills. I realize that my party, in theory, could cram it down your throats with our hefty majority, but we'd be held completely responsible for it, if it fails to work.'

The larger the size of the stimulus package, the larger the wager Obama would be placing. If he proceeds without the gop, he'll lose the blue dogs in the house. If he fails to get the gop token support, he will be putting Harry Reid's nut in a vice. If the gamble doesn't pay off in 22 months, his party is going to be savaged in the midterms. By the time the haggling over the actual bill is done, he will have less than 20 months, before his party gets graded at the midterms. GDP will actually look good, but unemployment will be peaking.

prediction?

the stimulus goes thru, at less than 400 billion, with a mish-mash of blue dogs and rinos defecting. Not enough gop to provide for decent cover, but after the thing gets shaved down, will at least appear more pragmatic and palatable to the blue dogs.

more significantly-the discussion of fiscal conservatism returns to the gop, after 8 years of absense. If I could pick one issue that would break the dems in 2010, that would be the one.

[Lala (shill for Dan)]

I don't see it as a plea, Mark, I see it as a threat.

[JustOneMan]

Gee...it didnt take King Barry 24 hours to prove the the world what a low life scum bag...

1. Provides a bail out for the abortion industry while people lose their homes and jobs
2. Screws Israel and supports the scumbags sheilling innocent people

Affirmative action combined with left wing policies....the ghetto goes to washingtion!

[mark l.]

"I don't see it as a plea, Mark, I see it as a threat."

a threat? absolutely. Obama believes that he can pass off the gop as foot soldiers of limbaugh and he just launched the first salvo across the bow.

does it have any teeth?
I'm distinctly remembering Clinton also going after limbaugh, who was making a ton of hay over a much smaller healthcare expenditure. Clinton felt immune becuase the gop had garnered only 37% of the vote in the, then recent, presidential race. suddenly the midterm, without warning, was the politcal apocalypse. By all means, let obama repeat history.

limbaugh?
he doesn't look good. I'm speculating that he has relapsed.

[mark l.]

cost of the Iraq War?
600 billion, for 6 years worth. The dems have been going crazy over the number.

obama is going to ask for 800 billion for ONE year, and the dems think people will be dancing in the streets?
They'll be gathering, but not for dancing.

[mark l.]

"Provides a bail out for the abortion industry while people lose their homes and jobs"

he is actually selling out his own race on that one.

"In the 35 reporting areas for which race was provided, classified according to the same categories used in previous years, approximately 53% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were known to be white; 36%, black..."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

an ethnic group that is 13% of the population, getting 36% of all abortions. Sounds like a eugenics program to wipe out African americans. It was wonderful of Barry to champion the cause for baby scrapers.

a side note from the survey:

"Adolescents aged <15 years obtained <1.0% of all abortions in the 48 areas that reported age".

(I had always assumed that the number would be higher. Shocking how low it is, despite the 'young daughter imprgenated by daddy' scenario that NARAL has made cliche in supporting abortion.)

[MarkJ]

Ummm, let's see. Barack "Rookie of the Year" Obama apparently wants to go after Rush Limbaugh, who a) has spent nearly his entire life communicating for a living, b) is undoubtedly the most popular and effective radio personality in the history of the medium, c) has a loyal weekly audience of 20+ million, d) is at the top of his game.

Who do you think would win such a scrap? I'll give you a clue: if His Preppiness is actually stupid and arrogant enough to attempt shutting Limbaugh down, he'll have to deal with a march on Washington that will dwarf the crowd seen at his coronation this week.

[TheSpartan]

e) Is 10lbs of Crap in a 5Lb bag.

Limbaugh's fans are too fat and lazy to march on washington without their electric scooters.

[mark l.]

what's the matter jharp,

you get a light bulb lost in your ass again?

[mark l.]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0123091obama1.html

apparently, obama has his 'opiate of the masses'.

He's in office for less than a week, and already he has his own line of drugs. crabs in a bucket.

[WBestPresidentEver]

I saw more "fat", slobby, lazy asses in Washington on January 20, than I have ever seen gathered in one place, ever. They were amongst the filth they left behind them. What a bunch of sorry low down good for nothings.
Some of thise people were huge. Twinkie wrappers everywhere. Eat up you guys.
You are gonna need that extra fat when Obama does not pay your gas and electric bills for you and you freeze your asses off. LMAO.

As for Rush...he has it right on most of the time. Thanks Rush for telling it like "IT IS". We need more voices like you in the world. You should start a recrutement program across America !! Limbos of America !

[Kitty]

BO's "I won" arrogance was best summed up by Charles Krauthammer:

"(BO) is astonishingly self-contained. He gives what he must to advance his goals, his programs, his ambitions. But no more. He has no need to."

With this kind of change there is no hope.

...

[bh]

BHO said 'get things done,' not 'get along'. If you're going to misrepresent something, it's best not to have the [correct] orignal two lines above.

I can't express the joy it's going to bring me to see you drooling idiots get your bed-wetting asses handed to you the next 8-to-16 years.

[Fred Beloit]

Hahahaha. Can't we all just....................... get going when the going gets tough? The true spirit of lib bipartisanship on display for all to see:

"I can't express the joy it's going to bring me to see you drooling idiots get your bed-wetting asses handed to you the next 8-to-16 years."

[Lala (shill for Dan)]

Hahaha, this from Ann Althouse, who, I believe, supported Obama.

"You can't ask questions in here! This is the press room!

"Ha ha. Funny — or scary — how often "Dr. Strangelove" allusions have been coming up."
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/01/you-cant-ask-questions-in-here-this-is.html

[jharp]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113962/Obama-Starts-Job-Approval.aspx

Gallup poll was conducted from Wednesday through Friday, Jan. 21-23, spanning Obama's first three full days on the job.

68% approve of his performance, only 12% of Americans disapprove of how he has performed thus far, while 21% have no opinion.

You are now 12% ers. How's thank make you feel?

[mark l.]

bush had a 92% after the 9/11 attacks. Over time it becomes meaningless, as it is a single snapshot, yet you provide another snapshot to show obama's support?

[jharp]

mark l,

I am smart enough to know what it means.

And what it means is that today, as we speak, you are among the 12% ers.

[mark l.]

so on sept 12, 2001 your were an 8%er?

at present, I have no opinion-21%er. I am encourage by his missile attacks in Pakistan, his support of FISA...

aside from promising to close gitmo in the future, there have been far more tacit endorsements of Bush's policies.

people inherently, and patrioticaly, rally to a president in times of natioanl crisis. the final judgement is dependent upon the perception of how you handle that crisis and the outcome, not the intial response.

technically, I'm a 47%er in that I didn't vote for obama.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/obama-sides-wit.html

"Obama Sides With Bush in Spy Case"

scroll down and there are links to other sories that suggest Bush and obama have far more in common than you would believe, ever-even after seeing it in print or action.

obama's support for telecom immunity doesn't make you blanche?
If anything, I'm troubled by his hawkishness on Afghanistan, without an real explanation of how long and how much.

Thus far, he is doing well. All that ends when he explains why he promised a fiscally responsible govt, and is seeking a 2 trillion dollar debt, composed of 1.5 trillion in new spending. Talk to me about his approval rating at that point.

[Lala]

The view from afar

Barack Obama's got no chance

rigTeaserImage
YOU may have heard this week that a country on the other side of the world has a new leader and as a result everything is solved.

The North Pole has begun to freeze over again, the financial crisis is at an end, the leaders of Israel and Hamas will soon be making public man love and your iPod headphones will no longer get all tangled up when you put them down for a moment.

Pretty soon, all the problems in Africa will be sorted as well because, apparently, this astonishing new leader has an amazing ability to stroll over oceans and turn fishes into huge, sprawling fields of wheat. Pausing only to cure leprosy during elevenses.

Well that’s what we’re being asked to believe by the world’s bleeding heart liberals such as Meryl Streep and Channel Four News who have got it into their heads that Barack Obama is actually a blend of Jesus, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/clarkson/article2166709.ece

[jharp]

"so on sept 12, 2001 your were an 8%er?"

Yes. And it turns out I was right.

"Obama Sides With Bush in Spy Case"

Don't know enough about the spy case to render a judgement.

"obama's support for telecom immunity doesn't make you blanche?"

I was and am against the telecom immunity.

"If anything, I'm troubled by his hawkishness on Afghanistan, without an real explanation of how long and how much."

I'm undecided. At least Afghanistan is a NATO operation. And Afghanistan was an actual training ground for terrorism. So I'll wait to decide but I do have concerns.

"All that ends when he explains why he promised a fiscally responsible govt, and is seeking a 2 trillion dollar debt, composed of 1.5 trillion in new spending."

Aren't you aware that our economy made an abrupt descent in October? And most if not all economist agree that government spending and in a big way is necessary to avoid disaster.

[old trooper]

Obama does not have a clue. He fooled America and will destroy it while Jharp is still clueless.

[mark l.]

"Sept. 29, 2008
WASHINGTON - In a stunning vote that shocked the capital and worldwide markets, the House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, ignoring urgent warnings from President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties that the economy could nosedive without it. The Dow Jones industrials plunged 778 points, the most ever for a single day.

Democratic and Republican leaders alike pledged to try again, though the Democrats said GOP lawmakers needed to provide more votes. Bush huddled with his economic advisers about a next step. The House was to reconvene on Thursday instead of adjourning for the year as planned."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26884523/

good luck with the pending stimulus bill. At the time of the above cited vote, 95 democrats voted against it. The ONLY reason it passed the next time around is because it garnered 91 of 189 gop votes. 62 dems still voted against it. 178 gop votes, along with the 62 dems who voted against it, provides for a MAJORITY that is going to knock obama's d*ck in the dirt.

178+62=240 votes. I wish your messiah all the luck in the world getting 23 blue dogs to support him.

[mark l.]

"And most if not all economist agree that government spending and in a big way is necessary to avoid disaster."

a rational person would have googled:

"economists who oppose the stimulus"

here's a link from Cato, along with the entire text:

"Not Just Cato Economists Oppose Stimulus
Posted by Chris Edwards

A Chicago Tribune editorial on the $800 billion “stimulus” plan noted that not all economists support such a scheme, as many stories in the media are suggesting:

John Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, says that among academics over the last 30 years, the idea of fiscal stimulus has been discredited and in graduate courses, it is ‘taught only for its fallacies.’

New York University economist Thomas Sargent agrees: ‘The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research.’

That’s what I remember from my BA and MA in economics, so I’ve been surprised by the dominance of Keynesian voices quoted in news stories.

Here are some more stimulus skeptics on a panel at the University of Chicago."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/22/not-just-cato-economists-oppose-stimulus/

It is one thing to promote economists that support a large stimulus, but your pretense that it is not opposed is just another symptom of your ignorance.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Furthermore, as I pointed out, the Obama-supporting economists are putting the racist ideology of the Obama Party ahead of their own research.

"Top Obama economic adviser Christina Romer has studied 20th-century recessions and concluded that monetary tools, not fiscal spending, produced recoveries. Even in the Great Depression, monetary expansion, not FDR's public works, opened the way toward recovery beginning in the spring of 1933."

And:

"They are also betting on the fact that a package divided between $550 billion in spending and $275 billion in tax cuts will be the right mix, even though Romer's research also shows tax cuts to have a larger multiplier effect on the economy than spending."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/20/news/economy/obama_inauguration.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009012008

But the reason why is obvious. With this in place, the majority of the people in this country will be dependent on government checks and welfare. Once that's the case, the Obama Party thinks it will have permanent control, since they are experienced with people like jharp who are concerned about nothing other than increasing the size of their welfare check and will simply purchase votes.

[mark l.]

if the gop were smart...

they should push for a federal stimulus that makes up budget shortfalls occuring in a majority of states.

This is the frontline of unemployment, as many states have balanced budget ammendments which they cannot violate. The potential job loss to make up budget shortfalls is one the most severe potential leaks that needs to be plugged.

The beauty of the plan is that while Obama may want to spend a ton of money, if he is forced to give the money to individual states, he will have far less to use towards federalization. Does he want to bolster an existing state health care plan, or tear it down, to replace it with his own in a period of high unemployment? republicans should be harping on his willingness to bail out GM, but his failure to address the specific needs of various states.

ANY attempt at a massive expansion should be met by the gop asking why the federal govt is seeking to create a service that a state already provides. If money is put into existing programs, they are already doing business and would be able to increase employment far faster than any federal allocation.

As for the 'donor' states...I'm thinking there are six?...give them a tax cuts, with direct payments to the residents of those states. They've earned it.

Tax cuts are the most effective means of creating spontaneous growth, and the argument sells itself.

[WBestPresidentEver]

I am grateful to be one of the 47% that did not vote for this clown.
What a fluke he is. He has no clue. But..Nancy and friends will lead him to water real quick. No doubt. They will pull those puppet strings whatever way they want and he will no doubt do whatever they say.
LMAO
He made the biggest mistake of all talking about Rush. Rush loves this. He is going to have a good time and his ratings will continuee to go up up up.
RUSH THANKS YOU OBAMA. YOU MADE HIS DAY.

[joymc]

As with many of B.H.O.'s statements, he reveals a world view not in keeping with the constitution of this republic. Last time I looked, we still have 3 branches of government. And last time I looked Each state elects its congressional delegates and senators to represent that states citizens and the agendas of those same citizens in Washington. Citizens do not necessarily elect congressional and senatorial representatives to GET ALONG with the executive branch, nor to GET ALONG with the representatives of other states. Not to mention that B.H.O. and other left wing democrats only consider it 'getting things done' if those things further their left wing agenda. I sincerely hope very few Republican senators and congress persons 'get along' with B.H.O. and that little gets done that suits this new president. I imagine this republic will be less damaged if that is the case.

[Christinewjc]

Can anyone believe this idiotic usurper in chief?? The things that come out of this arrogant fraud are just so ridiculously silly it is absolutely astounding!

Without his staged "written for him" rhetoric and teleprompter, Obama cannot deliver. It's as though he disconnects from the Borg-like HYPEnosis that he apparently enjoyed during his campaign. Now, we are seeing that his so-called "high intelligence" is more like a Romper Room Mentality.

http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-romper-room-mentality.html

The man acts like a child! Millions of us did not fall for his rhetoric and did not get fooled into voting for him. But those who were fooled by this empty suit with no coherent ideas and wisdom that makes sense - will now wake up (we hope) and finally see the bull-crap he was selling.