[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Wow.... left wing writers are starting to kill Obama... In yet another sign of Obama's pending doom left wing writers are starting to tear him to pieces. The people who loved him the most two years ago are calling him a failure. Amazing to see this type of a turn around. Even at his lowest point there were still a lot of people who liked or at least respected Bush. Obama may not even have that going for him now. What the far left is writing now is vicious. Here are a few examples: NY Times Drew Westen http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/op...pagewanted=all Quote: The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues. Ted Rall, syndicated columnist and far left winger. http://news.yahoo.com/down-1600-penn...223006025.html Quote: Is Obama a secret pawn of evil plutocrats? Does he suffer a character flaw alluded to in Westen's piece, that he doesn't know who he is? Maybe. But I don't think so. I think eight years of George W. Bush caused Americans to make a mistake. Obama was calm, so they assumed he was wise. Obama is calm. He's calm that it's hard to tell if he's sentient. But that doesn't make him smart. Based on his record before and after becoming president, there's a better-than-even chance that he's not very smart. Let's be logical. Let's assume that appearances don't lie--that Obama doesn't lose a wink of sleep over the fact that he's presiding over a disaster that makes 9/11 look like a joke. Let us further stipulate, for the sake of argument, that Obama isn't stupid. That he's merely another cynical and/or corrupt politician. If nothing else, Mr. Cynical (But Intelligent) Dirtbag ought to care about getting reelected. Right? Dana Milbank. Karl Rove asked the WaPo NOT to assign him to cover the White House and he wrote a book called: Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...72I_story.html The most powerful man on Earth? Quote: A familiar air of indecision preceded President Obama’s pep talk to the nation. The first draft of his schedule for Monday contained no plans to comment on the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating by Standard & Poor’s. Then the White House announced that he would speak at 1 p.m. A second update changed that to 1:30. At 1:52, Obama walked into the State Dining Room to read his statement. Judging from the market reaction, he should have stuck with his original instinct... Yet Obama plods along, raising gobs of cash for his reelection bid — he was scheduled to speak at two DNC fundraisers Monday night — and varying little the words he reads from the teleprompter. He seemed detached even from those words Monday as he pivoted his head from side to side, proclaiming that “our problems is not confidence in our credit” and turning his bipartisan fiscal commission into a “biparticle.” He reminded all that the situation isn’t his fault (the need for deficit reduction “was true the day I took office”), he blamed the other side (“we knew .41;.41;. a debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip could do enormous damage to our economy”) and he revisited the same proposals he had previously offered to little effect: extending unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut, and spending more on infrastructure projects. This, he said, is “something we can do as soon as Congress gets back,” along with further deficit reduction. “I intend to present my own recommendations over the coming weeks,” he said. Over the coming weeks? As soon as Congress gets back? Harold Meyerson who has a web site called "Left is Write" http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...Q5I_story.html Quote: Herewith, a few tips for our beleaguered president: Good that you’re taking your bus trip through the Midwest, but you should probably can your usual August escape to Martha’s Vineyard if the economy continues to crumble. I know you need a break, but you’re headed toward a long break starting Jan. 20, 2013, unless you change course.... So forget the Vineyard. When Congress comes back (you can call it back if the economy keeps dropping), address a joint session and lay out what we need to do to get the economy on track. Don’t get rattled if the Republicans boo. You’re making your case for salvaging the American economy and your presidency. And, brother, do you need one. Alexander Heffner in a piece listed under "Left-Leaning Contributors" on WaPo's web site. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...YTI_story.html Quote: “We hoped [Obama] would live up to his billing as the next FDR and initiate a new New Deal; but he didn’t,” wrote University of Wisconsin professor Harvey Kaye, who contributes to New Deal 2.0, a project of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. Jean Edward Smith, a prolific biographer of American political luminaries, including FDR, said Obama lacks Roosevelt’s killer instinct. “FDR recognized that the presidency was an adversarial endeavor,” Smith said in an interview. “Obama and today’s Democrats suffer from a shortage of testosterone.” The new liberal order, whatever it is, is not a revival of FDR’s politics. As we now know, Obama was no new New Deal. Richard Cohen, another WaPo left wing opinion writer http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...I3I_story.html Quote: Mr. Cool turns cold In her autobiography, Helen Gahagan Douglas recalled telling President Franklin D. Roosevelt about her visits to the camps of migrant workers. She was especially poignant about the children and their lack of Christmas toys when the president tried to stop her. “Don’t tell me any more, Helen,” FDR told the woman who is probably best known for losing a dirty Senate race to Richard Nixon. She was stunned. Roosevelt was crying. Can anyone imagine Barack Obama doing anything similar? The answer — at least my answer — is no. And this is quite amazing when you think about it. FDR was a Hudson River squire — down to his cigarette holder and cape. Nonetheless, he could connect to the less fortunate. Obama, in contrast, was raised in the great American muddle, not rich and not poor. Yet when the stock market fell more than 500 points last week and the image that night was of the president whooping it up at his birthday party, the juxtaposition — just bad timing, of course — seemed appropriate. He does not seem to care. These are the people who should be loving Obama the most. This is NOT a good sign if you are an Obama fan or a Democrat.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
It's not only the far left. The center-left Clintonestas are angry too. The country is grinding to a halt and Obama is taking yet another vacation to Martha's Vineyard. He's paying $50,000 a week to rental a beachfront home, plus all of the cost associated with his entourage of Secret Service agents, communications officials, top aides, drivers, and U.S. Coast Guard personnel. When he gets back, he's going on a bus tour to talk about jobs in the mid-west. Enough talking already. He's need to do something. Gut the 80,000 page tax code. Stop the extremists at the EPA from foisting more and more mind bending regulations on American manufacturers. Reform entitlements. Bring the troops home. It's not that hard.
the reality is that he can't do anything. With the House in GOP control the only item on the agenda is cutting spending. Jobs/economic growth aren't important to the Republicans, and keep in mind with an election coming up next year, the GOP will do everything to do to ensure there's no economic improvement between now and November. Remember:
Correct, because he's incapable of doing anything. One of Obama's earliest supporters (some black ex-Congressman, can't remember his name) was on MSNBC yesterday morning. He said that Obama's problem is that he doesn't know how to talk to people who disagree with him. This is exactly right. He's never been a governor that had to deal with an opposition legislature like Reagan and Clinton. Almost every time Obama talks, it's a campaign speech. His only substantive idea is that we need to soak the rich. That's all he ever says. When Obama's debt commission gave him their recommendation, he should of went on TV, held it up, and told the American people that we need to do this to fix the economy. He should have dumped it in Boehner's and Reid's laps and focused like a laser beam on building support for it around the country. That's what Reagan and Clinton would have done. Instead, he ran away from it. It was his own debt commission. There were Republicans on the commission who voted for it. But Obama ran away from it like it was the plague. Obama is a total and complete loser.
Given the commission wanted to raise taxes, the plan was DOA in the House. So why would Obama push it? BTW. you seem to have missed the fact that in the eye of the public, Obama won the debate over the budget plan. His approval far exceeds that of Boehner or the Tea Party (which currently has an 18% approval rating). Obama's overall standing with the public is around the same as Reagan's at similar points in their terms.
There are no replies to Comment # 9. End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|