What is the 1st thing you want to do as president? Lets go party.
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
What is the 1st thing you want to do as president? Lets go party.
Ahem, Jeff, for your information I haven't read the Fox report yet, I read about Obomo's little tantrum here http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009...alk_151572.htm
Here's a NEWS FLASH, Mr. President: Limbaugh is an entertainer on the radio. That's all he is, he doesn't make policies, and he doesn't have one damn thing to do with setting the Republican agenda nor does he have any influence over it. That's the job of the RNC, and even those policies aren't binding to members of Congress like Eric Cantor."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 world according to the Obombo administration's spin meisters. Not even a week in office and they're already having to make apologies and excuses and put a spin on their hero's childish outbursts. And you libs accused Dan Quayle and Dubya of being stupid?"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.
In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.
"I will trump you on that."
Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.
If you don't count the wages paid to all the federal employees that got the day off. I expect that adds at least a hundred million to his tab.Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
Yep. Spent about the same amount as Bush did in 2005 and managed to entertain five times the number of people. Finally, a President who understands the economies of scale.
"Nattering nabobs of negativism" is a quote by Spiro Agnew. I was there for the whole Nixon mess. Instead of complaining- How about contributing or doing something that helps. This Country need people to add not subtract.
Julie,
If you look you'll notice I said "the News Corp/Fox outlets". The New York Post and Fox are both owned by News Corporation, a company founded and controlled by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian conservative who considers it so important to increase his political influence in America that he changed his citizenship from Australian to American for the sole purpose of avoiding US laws restricting foreign ownership of television stations.
Murdoch's most recent acquisitions have been the Wall Street Journal and the Dow Corporation. At the WSJ, the fear has been that he would use his power to undermine the historic division between news reporting and editorial policy that has existed there to force reporters to bend the news as needed to fit his political priorities. To convince the owners to sell, he agreed to preserve jounalistic indiependence. However, after the way he has managed the New York Post and Fox News, few expect him to honor that agreement.
One of the biggest mistakes Liberals ever made was mistaking Bush's complete disinterest in policy analysis for stupidity. GWB is not and never was stupid.
Liberals have a tendency to confuse intelligence with analysis. One of my professors in graduate school pointed out correctly that true believers trump analytic types every time because they never allow themselves to be sidetracked by facts, self doubt, or considerations of fairness; it's enough to be right. In fact, I think GWB managed to outdo the true believers. His true belief was in his own capabilities of leadership and in his personal destiny as a leader. The direction in which he was leading was always of secondary importance and he delegated it to policy wonks like Karl Rove and Karen Hughes until their failures overwhelmed his administration. However, as a political executive Bush was highly effective, not stupid.
Obama seems to be an interesting mix of both GWB and Clinton. Obama is clearly very analytic in his approach to problems. However, he is also convinced of his own destiny as a great leader. Like Bush he forces a clear focus on the agenda and seeks to manage the news cycle to fit the needs of the agenda. He seems more willing to be introspective and to be flexible than was ever true of GWB.
However, that could easily change if he is cannot meet the challenges he faces. Hopefully, for all of us, he will find the right paths to help our economy recover and to break us out of the cycle of perpetual war. However, like Bush, he may not live up to the job. In that case, we will all pay more than we or our children can afford.
I would have put a 250 dollar topper on itYep. Spent about the same amount as Bush did in 2005 and managed to entertain five times the number of people. Finally, a President who understands the economies of scale.
__________________
Pete
Yeh, I know what you mean. I was hoping the left would do that for the last 8 years.
Julie, let me point out. . .
We won, we won. So, the majority of Americans are not listening to your complaints. Get used to it, you're a minority.
How exactly does a minority become a majority?
I could be wrong but it may actually have something to do with complaining and speaking out. Although, if one needed to stifle descent because their position lacks any substance, that would probably be a good method.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
