Obama: Doubling Down on Incompetence

[Cow Poke]

FOR EXAMPLE... we're working with the students (in our Jobs for Life program) on how to interview. We set up mock interviews, and I am absolutely blown away by some of the answers given by students to questions asked in the mock interview. Some of them "get it", but others seem absolutely resigned to failure, and one of them (unmarried with two small children, and currently pregnant) explained to me in great detail the benefits of having three children, because she gets enough "assistance" to pay for her apartment and food, but if she got married, that would go away. Now, I don't know the veracity of what she's saying --- that's not my job --- just astounded that SHE believes that, and is making life choices accordingly.

[rogue06]

No, not remotely. Bush had high levels of cooperation from Democrats for the first term of his presidency and, while the second term was rockier, he still had a Democratic-majority Congress who worked with him to pass and implement important policies — No Child Left Behind, TARP, Medicare Part D, and a pass at immigration reform, which would be tanked by Republicans in the Senate.

Obama? Little Republican support on the stimulus, none on the auto bailout, McConnell actively whipping Republican senators willing to support health care reform (explaining how -total- opposition was necessary), government shutdowns over Obamacare repeal, trying to use the debt ceiling as an -actual- hostage twice, preventing immigration reform from coming up for a House vote after having passed the Senate despite there clearly being enough votes for passage . . . man, and that's just off the top of my head.

Let's play it this way: which major policy initiatives have received bipartisan support under Obama? Take that number (near-zero) and compare it to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan or as far back as you want to go. It'll take awhile to get to a minority party displaying such complete opposition.

He had support for his efforts after 9/11 concerning 9/11. Otherwise he actually reached out and worked with Congress -- something even Democrats on the Hill say that Obama is loathe to do (they complain how he rarely contacts them so you can imagine how little it is with the Republicans). And as I said in a different thread a sign of a competent president is his ability to get things done even if the opposition controls one or both parts of Congress -- especially if they are more than a little hostile.

You love to carp about how Republicans have expressed disinterest in working with Obama (imagine that after he smeared their faces in his election victory, saying he didn't need them or their support, and his refusal to consider their input) yet ignore how Republicans presidents faced similar opposition. I can't remember offhand exactly which leading Democrat famously said that the president's budget proposal was "dead on arrival" even before he submitted them.

But a competent president learns to work with or around such opposition rather than worry about how it interferes with his fundraising schedule or might delay his tee time.

[Cow Poke]

Even the most ardent atheists, as physicists, are allowed the use of the language of God when embracing their cosmic awe. It's a shame that the language of sin is reserved for the religious, making concurrence by a non-believer self-defeating. From the secular side, there's often a sense of triumph associated with Christians, and especially their leaders, behaving badly.

That's not me.

For whatever reason, I still hold idealized opinions about preachers. These are folks I expect to see working across religious lines in support of their faith, and CP does this very well, and across party lines, where he fails miserably. I pity the democrat who's a member of his congregation. When hyper-partisanship comes from a preacher, it reflects on the faith.

Now, there's a part of me that's very okay with this. That's a part of me that embraces almost, if not outright, sinful uncharity. Forgive me, CP. I know you're human, and I shouldn't hold you up to impossible standards.

There's only so much we should expect from a poopie-head.

As ever, Jesse

That's OK, Jesse... there's only so much I expect from a Drama Queen.

[rogue06]

he still had a Democratic-majority Congress who worked with him to pass and implement important policies — No Child Left Behind, TARP, Medicare Part D, and a pass at immigration reform, which would be tanked by Republicans in the Senate.

Forgot to address this. Please notice that these were all examples where there was significant Republican opposition and all things that you could expect at least some Democrats to support. Please give me an example of legislation pushed by Obama that is similar in nature -- something that wasn't designed to appeal solely to his base aside from some of the actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan (and very recently taking action against ISIS) where he indeed did get his bipartisan support.

[rogue06]

That's OK, Jesse... there's only so much I expect from a Drama Queen.

But he did get one thing right.


You are a poopie-head

[Cow Poke]

But he did get one thing right.


You are a poopie-head

The poopiest!



Well, after my big brother, that is, and Sparko --- the poopiest of them all.

[rogue06]

The poopiest!



Well, after my big brother, that is, and Sparko --- the poopiest of them all.

Sparko is a nincompoopie-head.

[Cow Poke]

Sparko is a nincompoopie-head.

Why are you so nice to him?

[rogue06]

Why are you so nice to him?

Bribes

[Cow Poke]

Bribes

Before I even click, I'm going to assume bacon.

[One Bad Pig]

But how far should we go in persuading a government that they allow our military to fight their war? How would we persuade them? Give them more money? Threaten them with a coup? Was the Malaki government doing a good job? Should we prop them up even if they were already losing popular and congressional support?

I wouldn't presume to make that call from this remove. Negotiations like that tend to be an attempt to find the least worst option.

[One Bad Pig]

Probably the most sensible option.

Leaving a power vacuum is seldom the most sensible option.

[Paprika]

Leaving a power vacuum is seldom the most sensible option.

Because staying would fill the vacuum and bring stability and peace.

[robrecht]

Yes, you did not! I meant to make that clear, but you beat me to the response!

Probably BECAUSE of what I see in my own community. So many of the people to whom we minister are products, in my opinion, of the great blunders of the liberals - almost all of the people we help are on welfare, social programs, public housing --- and they seem content to be "stuck" there. Our Jobs for Life program, for example, is all about a "way out" of "the system".

I think I probably VENT here because of what I deal with in real life, and cannot (or choose not to) vent publicly in real life.

The gospel of Jesus should not be allied too closely with the gospels of Bush, Obama, Boehner, Reid or McConnell, either in Texas or on the Internet, in my not so humble opinion. I think the people you are working with have been failed by both Democrats and Republicans alike.

[Cow Poke]

The gospel of Jesus should not be allied too closely with the gospels of Bush, Obama, Boehner, Reid or McConnell, either in Texas or on the Internet, in my not so humble opinion.

I had no intention of tying the Gospel of Jesus to ANY of those people. You kinda added the "Good Friday" aspect to my observation that Democrats ran from Obama like scalded dogs (he was Judas'd and Peter'd). Let's both abandon that analogy.

I think the people you are working with have been failed by both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Then why, I wonder out loud, do all of us who are helping them out of their quagmire just happen to be REPUBLICANS?