Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now. I could have taken certain positions on aspects of the financial regulatory bill, where we got 90 percent of what we set out to get, and I could have held out for that last 10 percent, and we wouldn't have a bill. You've got to make a set of decisions in terms of "What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to just keep everybody ginned up for the next election, or at some point do you try to win elections because you're actually trying to govern?"
That is it right there. At some point, this becomes an insane battle.
Yeah, I read that article. So, let me get this straight. If I am a Tea Party supporter, that means that I am a mindless drone that is a tool of shadowy corporate interests that are using the Tea Party movement to manipulate the uneducated, racists, angry masses.
Is that correct?
I am just sad after reading this interview. One of my hobbies is reading presidential biographies. I love reading about what has motivated Presidents and what makes them tick. It appears, after reading this interview that this President really can NOT let go of this attitude that "nothing is my fault, I inherited, x, y and z". This really is not behavior becoming the leader of the free world. I didn't read about Harry Truman sniveling about inheriting WWII, the bomb, the cold war, etc. He just rolled up his sleeves and got to work. (Yes, there ARE Democrats that I admire).
Also, this President promised to make the oceans recede and the planet heal. Maybe if he didn't make such grand promises, his base wouldn't be so pissy right now.
One more thing, there is what his base wanted and there is what the general population wanted. Yes, his base wanted climate change legislation, out of Gitmo, health care legislation and out of the Middle East.
The general population wants JOBS. They want a focus like a laser beam on the economy and the rest can wait. So, while he focuses on the 18% that can be relied upon as his progressive base, the rest of the country is bitterly disappointed.
Yeah, I read that article. So, let me get this straight. If I am a Tea Party supporter, that means that I am a mindless drone that is a tool of shadowy corporate interests that are using the Tea Party movement to manipulate the uneducated, racists, angry masses.
Is that correct?
I am just sad after reading this interview. One of my hobbies is reading presidential biographies. I love reading about what has motivated Presidents and what makes them tick. It appears, after reading this interview that this President really can NOT let go of this attitude that "nothing is my fault, I inherited, x, y and z". This really is not behavior becoming the leader of the free world. I didn't read about Harry Truman sniveling about inheriting WWII, the bomb, the cold war, etc. He just rolled up his sleeves and got to work. (Yes, there ARE Democrats that I admire).
Also, this President promised to make the oceans recede and the planet heal. Maybe if he didn't make such grand promises, his base wouldn't be so pissy right now.
One more thing, there is what his base wanted and there is what the general population wanted. Yes, his base wanted climate change legislation, out of Gitmo, health care legislation and out of the Middle East.
The general population wants JOBS. They want a focus like a laser beam on the economy and the rest can wait. So, while he focuses on the 18% that can be relied upon as his progressive base, the rest of the country is bitterly disappointed.
I'm actually quite shocked to read that you enjoy reading presidential biographies, given that you got pretty much everything President Obama said in this interview completely wrong!
In the Tea Party: "There are some strong and sincere libertarians. . . There are some social conservatives. . . There are [some] that are troubled by what they saw as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working-class people have been abused or hurt by special interests and Washington. . . and there are some that are a little darker. . . There's no doubt that there is genuine anger, frustration and anxiety in the public at large. . ."
And you read this as: "[they are] mindless drone that [are] a tool of shadowy corporate interests that are using the Tea Party movement to manipulate the uneducated, racists, angry masses."
Absolutely stunning in how far off the mark you lept.
Where he's focusing his attention: "What is true, and this is part of what can frustrate folks, is that over the past 20 months, we made a series of decisions that were focused on governance, and sometimes there was a conflict between governance and politics. So there were some areas where we could have picked a fight with Republicans that might have gotten our base feeling good, but would have resulted in us not getting legislation done. I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now."
And you read this as: "he focuses on the 18% that can be relied upon as his progressive base"
And you also claim that "his base wanted climate change legislation, out of Gitmo, health care legislation and out of the Middle East. The general population wants JOBS." How you reconcile the fact that we are not out of Gitmo, we don't have Climate Change legislation and we're not out of the Middle East, with him focusing "on the 18% that can be relied upon as his progressive base" is mystifying.
And when you start with the absurdities like, he "promised to make the oceans recede and the planet heal," well, you lose even the pretense of credibility or objectivity.
And when you start with the absurdities like, he "promised to make the oceans recede and the planet heal," well, you lose even the pretense of credibility or objectivity.
June 3rd 2008
"...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless;this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals......"
It's not an absurdity, it's a quote from the President of the United States.
Of course, when you read it in retrospect, it is indeed absurd...
"...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless;this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals......"
It's not an absurdity, it's a quote from the President of the United States.
Of course, when you read it in retrospect, it is indeed absurd...
No, what's absurd is when you twist it to mean something that wasn't even implied. You know damn good and well he was talking about climate change legislation stemming warming that is melting the ice caps, not proclaiming himself G-d as if he were going to personally make the waters recede and heal the earth himself.
It's certainly an interesting way to distort the truth, but it's still not true any way you slice it.
There's no doubt that the infrastructure and the financing of the Tea Party come from some very traditional, very powerful, special-interest lobbies. ......because of the ability of a lot of very well-funded groups to point that anger — I think misdirect that anger — it is translating into a relevant political force in this election.
And, yes, I read this as: "[they are] mindless drone that [are] a tool of shadowy corporate interests that are using the Tea Party movement to manipulate the uneducated, racists, angry masses."
The interview should have been called :Obama in Command: Rolling Stone does interview with knee pads on and mouth open
Examples of hard-hitting questions from the interview:
When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side. When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy?
How do you feel about the fact that day after day, there's this really destructive attack on whatever you propose? Does that bother you? Has it shocked you?
You've passed more progressive legislation than any president since Lyndon Johnson. Yet your base does not seem nearly as fired up as the opposition, and you don't seem to be getting the credit for those legislative victories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
