Gary M Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I feel bad for you dopes that voted for this turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I feel bad for you dopes that voted for this turd. Caveat emptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Caveat emptor A near Earl Butz moment there for the Prez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 He's actually smart to have broken that promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) I don't need to see the president on the picket line, but I have to say, I am very disappointed with the way he has handled (not handled) the situation in Wisconsin. I am disgusted with the whole party for keeping their mouths shut. What is going on there is a "big deal" as far as I am concerned. Edited February 28, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't need to see the president on the picket line, but I have to say, I am very disappointed with the way he has handled (not handled) the situation in Wisconsin. I am disgusted with the whole party for keeping their mouths shut. What is going on there is a "big deal" as far as I am concerned. I came to the conclusion a while back that much of the Democratic party is just the good cop to the Republicans bad cop - or maybe the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't need to see the president on the picket line, but I have to say, I am very disappointed with the way he has handled (not handled) the situation in Wisconsin. I am disgusted with the whole party for keeping their mouths shut. What is going on there is a "big deal" as far as I am concerned. I think if the battle was strictly about the situation in Wisconsin, they'd all be in the fight with more volume. But unfortunately, the fight isn't exclusive to Wisconsin. Many other states that picked up GOP control in the last election are starting to wage this battle against union money laundering, and I think after dipping its toe in the Wisconsin water in a relatively embarrassing manner (you can't urge people to tone down even the softest of harsh rhetoric, and then call the Wisconsin efforts "an assault")- and stumbling its way through other state issues like SB1070 and the Cambridge cops incident -- Obama was probably told to stop feeling the need to opine about every little thing that is happening, and if you're going to pick a battle, wait until you know all the positions of the enemy before you fully start swinging. Or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's simple really, They are for the most part staying out of it because it is a losing situation, the public is against the Unions in this instance. We are going to be entering an election year, and Obama needs the independents and most independents side with Walker on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) I think if the battle was strictly about the situation in Wisconsin, they'd all be in the fight with more volume. But unfortunately, the fight isn't exclusive to Wisconsin. Many other states that picked up GOP control in the last election are starting to wage this battle against union money laundering, and I think after dipping its toe in the Wisconsin water in a relatively embarrassing manner (you can't urge people to tone down even the softest of harsh rhetoric, and then call the Wisconsin efforts "an assault")- and stumbling its way through other state issues like SB1070 and the Cambridge cops incident -- Obama was probably told to stop feeling the need to opine about every little thing that is happening, and if you're going to pick a battle, wait until you know all the positions of the enemy before you fully start swinging. Or something like that. I hear what you are saying, but the unions delivered for Obama, just like they did for Clinton before him. In my mind, this anti-Union stance is extremely short sighted, and who, if not the president, should be voicing more concern over this development? I realize that so many don't like Obama, and I am starting to have more problems with him. Not for the reasons that conservatives have. I think he has done a very poor job of defending his positions, and falls too easily to conservative wishes. It is almost like he thinks people are smart enough to "get it"...but they aren't. Stay out of the Cambridge police deparment, but damnit, stand for something that matters. Edited February 28, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I hear what you are saying, but the unions delivered for Obama, just like they did for Clinton before him. In my mind, this anti-Union stance is extremely short sighted, and who, if not the president, should be voicing more concern over this development? On the other hand...it's a state matter, not a federal one. And thus, he should stay out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 On the other hand...it's a state matter, not a federal one. And thus, he should stay out of it. Do you think this is an attempt to get the Govenors to back off the unions? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/politics/01health.html?exprod=myyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Do you think this is an attempt to get the Govenors to back off the unions? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/politics/01health.html?exprod=myyahoo Read the story earlier. Hadn't thought of that possibility. I don't know...but I have to admit it has a certain appeal in explaining this bizarre and stupid "I was for it before I was against it" health care statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I hear what you are saying, but the unions delivered for Obama, just like they did for Clinton before him. In my mind, this anti-Union stance is extremely short sighted, and who, if not the president, should be voicing more concern over this development? The reality is, Obama is a politician, and politicians only care about one thing: getting re-elected. While I understand and appreciate your position as it relates to his recent radio silence on the union issues, it's a win-win for Obama. Getting into the Wisconsin debate accomplishes two things he doesn't want or need to accomplish: bolster a base that will always vote for him anyway, and alienate the independents who increasingly believe unions are part of the problem. Consider yourself; the items you cite as a disappointment are pretty consistent with other Democrats. He doesn't always stick to his guns. He doesn't always explain his position well. He does too much compromising (i.e. no single payer in Obamacare, let's the Bush tax cuts continue for the wealthy). But there is no way in hell you vote for anyone other than Obama in 2012. He doesn't need to make his base happy. He just needs to make sure he doesn't do anything incredibly stupid to piss them off. And he won't. But even if he does, he'll just say something about how he's suddenly in favor of gay marriage, and the base is back on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't need to see the president on the picket line, but I have to say, I am very disappointed with the way he has handled (not handled) the situation in Wisconsin. I am disgusted with the whole party for keeping their mouths shut. What is going on there is a "big deal" as far as I am concerned. You're right there, it is a big deal. Can you explain why the pension liability here in CA has gone from $2bil in 2000 to $6bil today? That's quite a jump in the past 10 years. Please explain to me why the big jump. I need some justification and you should be able to provide it no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts