This thread is not about how The President works, Mike.
Actually, Bob, that's exactly what it is.
No, Mike, it isn't. It's about the effect the Republicans have had on domestic policy and on how they're using budgetary issues in the congress through the example of events that took place a year ago so that we can have some perspective on how they unfolded. If you want to accuse the Democratic Congress of being weak or disorganized or spineless, I won't give you much of a fight. I was surprised they managed to get the bill through what was then a Democratic House. I don't think such a thing is possible today, and I see nothing of its like being proposed by that body today.
If you want to talk about President Obama not being much of a hardball player when it comes to the Senate and his negotiations with them, I'd agree with you there. I think he's made a mess of his dealings with the senate in a lot of different ways, though differently than you apparently do. One of the things that I don't regard him as doing very well at with the senate is using Presidential power very well. The House may have the power to appropriate money. That money may have to be Okayed by the Senate, but it's the President who administers how that money goes and where and when. If he were using his leverage correctly, a lot of the payoffs that the Republicans might expect to get and that have been appropriated would not actually be spent, and the President would grin and tell the Public he saved them a lot of money the next year. He hasn't done that.
Maybe he can't for one reason or another, or feels he shouldn't.
As for the President getting people to post threads like this one, I want to know, Who leaked? B and I have been burning up the wires talking about exactly how I was going to pull your chain, Mike. You're pivotal in the whole Democratic Southeastern Strategy, and B is loath to trust the details of what I say, and how and when to anybody less crafty and devious than himself personally.
That was a joke, Mike. I try to indicate them more often these days. Humor doesn't always come across easily in these forums.
As for the first responders being excluded from the gathering, this is the first I've heard about it. As you were good enough to point out with your posting about how Google individualizes content, it's possible I wouldn't have even if I'd looked, but I've been doing other stuff recently and haven't checked in with the news much. Any references would be appreciated.
I understand the urge to attack President Obama.
Substitute Republicans for President Obama and we have the purpose of this thread.
Well, yes: Specifically the guys who were quoted in the articles I've posted so far who said such things as they didn't remember how they voted. Mr. Gates, the Communications secretary at the time, caught some flak as well, but the Republicans definitely looked terrible because they acted terribly.
I was under the impression that it had posted with the article, simultaneously. I see here that it has not. My intention was for publication information to show up with the text, and I can only express my consternation that it didn't work out that way.
I find that unlikely, Bob, unless you are the type of person who introduces a thread and, upon completion, does not check it for accuracy. You would appear to be a little more thorough than that. I don't see where the omission of a link to an article from last year over a topic that has already been resolved would make a difference anyway. You decided to take a shot at Republicans without checking that it was old news and it backfired.....I guess you have urges, too.
That's not even a subtle way of calling me a liar, Mike.
I did check that the link was posted — in front of the article in this case — before I posted it. Perhaps your computer always displays your postings as part of the thread and you can review what you've written for review by making an edit on the text as it appears. Mine does a minority of the time, and usually the program thanks me for my contribution and I won't see what the machine has set up until the next day. Occasionally, when I can see what's been put up immediately afterwards, I will edit it. If I had seen that the link was not present, I would have included it, and I thought it was there when I sent it off.
I took a shot at the Republicans. It was justified. It was an example of the way Republicans operated then and continue to operate now. Your response to being confronted with the situation and the facts is to call me a liar. I can understand your discomfort with the way the Republicans behaved at the time, if you are in fact uncomfortable with it.
You know my discomforts with the Democratic party because I've been open about them. You know my discomforts about the President, because I've been open about them too. In fact, I don't have to lie to bring up the topic, so I have no idea what your notion of my motivation might be. Nor am I sure that a discussion of that would be appropriate here,
If you believe that somehow President Obama is causing the Republicans in the House and Senate to do the things they did and continue to do, that might be interesting. If he's devious enough to do that, though, I wonder how come he's not getting some of the legislation he wanted passed through in the form that he wanted it, and why there has been what, to my mind at least, there has been so little compromise on the part of the Republicans on tax increases in the very very rich, for example. You can't paint the President as an evil genius and a total idiot and incompetent at the same time, not and make anything approaching a reasonable statement.