Democrats Privately Calling Obama 'Detached,' 'Flat Footed,' 'Incompetent' (McCain, Mexican)

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

You still don't understand the concept of an editor allowing a reporter to use an anonymous source.

Speaking of thinking, if you don't think it is possible that a few of the over 200 Democrat Representatives and Senators think that Obama is "Detached", "Flat-footed", and/or "incompetent" than you have not been thinking and drinking Kool-Aid.

Obama has been factually detached and flatfooted on quite a few issues. I would argue incompetent as well.

Also, you are so blinded by partisan news sources that are pro-Obama, because if you were decently informed, you would realize that these types of comments are nothing new.

Obama's then National Economic Council director Larry Summers said “We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.’

White House Officials Attack Book, Author, With Whom They Cooperated - ABC News


P.S. Why are you bringing up Limbaugh? What does he have to do with this? Nothing. He is a hyperpartisan, much like you it seems. Seems like you are losing, if you must dodge the facts and throw in Limbaugh as a boogeyman talking point.

As I previously stated ... and will repeat again ... all Liberals don't think alike on every issue.

If there are several Democrats in Congress that are unhappy with some of Obama's stances on various issues, then that is their prerogative to think that way. I have no problem with it at all.

In fact, I am very happy that they are thinking for themselves, and expressing their own opinions.

And for the record .... I rarely ever read politically biased news sources.

I am not into extremist Left Wing websites or blogs.

I get my news primarily from major newspaper websites, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, etc, and whatever links are provided in Google News.

And I mostly watch CNN for news.

In contrast, some here go straight to the Extreme Right-Wing websites, and then post whatever they find as a new thread here in the Politics forum.

When I Googled the OP's article, I found it appeared on hundreds of Right Wing websites.

It seems every Right Wing website imaginable all think it's some sort of major news revelation that some Democrats disagree with Obama on certain issues?

You Right-Wingers are too much!

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Sorry, but you are incorrect. A supermajority meant nothing during the turbulent 1960's. LBJ had to contend with a large cadre of conservative Democrats that were't automatic votes. LBJ had to do alot of convincing and arm twisting to get the votes he wanted and needed. Clearly you are mesmerized by the Obama/Pelosi/Reid style of party loyalty. That you think party loyalty historically trumps personal politics shows that you are far too young to be engaged in any discussion involving Lyndon Johnson and his ability to whip votes for his cause. None of it came easy.....LBJ is legendary for exactly the opposite reason that you hypothesize here. That means that LBJ is a bona fide leader. Barack Obama isn't even in the same galaxy.

I never argued that they were automatic votes, i im not incorrect, I clearly said the debate was with his own party and not Republicans. Reading comprehension is key.

There is a huge difference between arguing with someone who agrees with you on doing something just not how to do it vs someone who completely disagrees with you on All levels.

LOL at LBJ being a bona fide leader, LBJ freaking threatened people with political retribution if they didnt vote his way. Have you ever heard the Warren Report tapes ????? If Barack Obama ever did what LBJ did, you would *#&#^ your pants and be be marching in the streets for his resignation.

The only one blind here is you.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by swagger

So your argument is that a supermajority is needed by any president to get anything done?

Wow. That's a really lousy argument.

If you had read the comment I was responding to, you would have realized I was responding to someone who claimed President Obama hada filibuster proof senate.

I guess reading comprehension isnt popular on this site.

[LoveToRow]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I never argued that they were automatic votes, i im not incorrect, I clearly said the debate was with his own party and not Republicans. Reading comprehension is key.

There is a huge difference between arguing with someone who agrees with you on doing something just not how to do it vs someone who completely disagrees with you on All levels.

LOL at LBJ being a bona fide leader, LBJ freaking threatened people with political retribution if they didnt vote his way. Have you ever heard the Warren Report tapes ????? If Barack Obama ever did what LBJ did, you would *#&#^ your pants and be be marching in the streets for his resignation.

The only one blind here is you.

Hilarious, you don't even see the irony in your post.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by MrClose

School.
You really mean that you are going to school?

The ObamaCare debate, in which the Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate, lasted longer than a few days or even a few months.

In fact, it took up almost a whole year.

During Obama's first two years, his Democratic allies in Congress passed not only Obamacare, but Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, Dodd-Frank, and the massive debt-ballooning stimulus.

Democrats won big in 2006 -- when they took the House from Republicans -- and 2008. They had a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate during much of the first two years of President Obama’s first term and a sizable majority in the House. The use of Congress's many recesses to dismiss the two-year number is patently ludicrous.


I'll forgive your less than honest statement if you meant that they did not have a filibuster-proof majority until Al Franken was seated, but they certainly had a clear majority.
(After all .. you are rushing off to sch .. uh work)

Wow. Ok lets start over again.

1. I graduated College in July.

2. Yes, i went to work, you know that place where you get paid to do a job.

3. Your argument was not about simply having a majority, you claimed he had a Super Majority because you said Republicans didnt have the ability to block what he tried to pass, You were wrong.

4. And Again, President Obama did NOT have a super Majority for 2 Years.

When Barack Obama, Joe Biden,Ken Salazar and Hillary Clinton's seats were filled by their State Governors , that mean there were a total of 58 Democrats. not 60.

Arlen Specter then Switched parties in April of 2009, That gave then 59.

Because there were 2 recounts in Minnesota and because the incumbent republican would not concede the election, Al Frankin did not take office till July 7th 2009. That gave them 60.

August 25th, Kennedy dies, September 25, Paul Kirk replaces him. Feb 4th Brown(R) replaces him. Down to 59 Democrats.

But between July 7th and Feb 4th. Both Ted Kennedy and Robert Brad were in and out of the Hospital. The actual number of days 60 Democrats could end a Filibuster was 21. Not 2 years

At Best your argument should be that He had a Super Majority for One year, Because i can "forgive" you not knowing about Specter switching parties and Frankin not being seated till July. But claiming he had a filibuster proof super majority for 2 years is pure ignorance.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Trace21230

Hilarious, you don't even see the irony in your post.

There is no irony in my post. The Person i responded to failed to make a valid point by claiming i didnt see something that I had already clearly pointed out.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Yes, one party challenging the other, as is cited in your link, is part of the negotiation process. Both parties do that. Obama's problem is that he wouldn't negotiate with the Republicans at all. He simply refused to work with them at all, insisting, "I won."

This was not just challenging the other party, as the link also says. They planned to make sure no meaning full legislation got through. You can pretend all you want, but your party was never willing to negotiate.

its one of the reasons Olympia Snowe left the senate.

[SHABAZZ310]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

I wonder if any of them will be called racists since most times when repubs say anything about O THEY are called racists!

Conservatives love to play the race card...

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

I'm not a liberal or a Democrat.....but I can absolutely concur that LBJ and Clinton were capable leaders with real bona fide leadership skills. You hit the nail on the head. Barack Obama just doesn't have it. People are starting to see this. Better late than never.

Isn't that a reflection of his trusted lieutenants? If Obama refers to Michelle as the Boss...........and God knows what he calls Valerie Jarrett!!! Master?

[Mr.Quiet]

Originally Posted by Kracer

Flatfooted means he is less than agile in response. He lumbers along, he is a plodder, he offers rhetoric rather than action though he tries his best to make rhetoric sound like action and the media does its best to pretend his rhetoric is action.

In this case it means he comes up with repsonses like, 'I read it in the paper'.

His inability to work across the aisle and instead use his phone and pen or regulatory agencies to bypass the people's representatives which he was so concerned the supreme court would do when they contemplated obamacare.

The news media acts as his crutch to mitigate the impact of his lack of flexibility. "I will not negotiate" and that was with the repubs not the leader of Iran.

Not bad. Two more years left of this. Brace yourselves.