Official FFA 2014 Midterms- GOP wins Senate, victories everywhere (1 Viewer)

[Aerial Assault]

Did all you cons have huge problems with all of GWB's signing statements?

Here's an example of what's wrong with executive authority:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/04/393988/-Bush-Signing-Statement-Gonzales-Lies-Concealed-Torture-Policy#

There was a law, created by Congress. President looks at that law, decides it's inconvenient, consults with AG, AG advises hey you know what you don't need to follow that law, sign an EO. Done.

Good example. I'm reminded that you're by far my favorite conservative on this board, and one of the only ones with any sense.

 

[dhockster]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

 

[Aerial Assault]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

We're gonna repeal Obamacare and women are dumb. :Boehner:

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Did all you cons have huge problems with all of GWB's signing statements?

Here's an example of what's wrong with executive authority:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/04/393988/-Bush-Signing-Statement-Gonzales-Lies-Concealed-Torture-Policy#

There was a law, created by Congress. President looks at that law, decides it's inconvenient, consults with AG, AG advises hey you know what you don't need to follow that law, sign an EO. Done.

Good example. I'm reminded that you're by far my favorite conservative on this board, and one of the only ones with any sense.

Agreed here, Saints is one of the few with any intellectual honesty.

 

[fatness]

Hard to believe this guy, an adjunct teacher at U of Chi night law school, was passed off as a Constitutional Law professor. If he's studied it, it's only to see how it can be deconstructed.

He wasn't an adjunct, he was something like a "lecturer" or something. He was apparently offered a tenure-track position but turned it down. I'm not sure where you're getting your "night law school" thing, I'm pretty sure the University of Chicago doesn't even have a night school.

Professors write and publish. Instructors or lecturers take a book and teach classes out of it. Any lawyer can show up and be a lecturer if the law school hires him/her.

Here's the syllabus from one of Obama's main classes, put out by the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/Obama_CoursePk.pdf

Here's a paper from UNC on it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2131395

"Current Issues in Racism and the Law.” He taught this for about 12 years, 1992-2004, let me know if you see anything on federalism or Article I, II, or II powers there.

Those 2 days of governing were sweet.

But here we are, back to why Obama's not qualified to be president, same old thing for the last 6 years.

Too many people in the GOP are too angry at Obama to let their party try to compromise with him to solve problems. They want their part to go get him, to get him back, to make him pay. A party can't feed and thrive off that kind of anger, get many candidates elected as a result of it, and then just walk away from it. The anger needs to be fed.

Great theater coming up.

 

[fatness]

Are we seriously going to go back him being a professor? We aren't past that? C'mon guys.

The birther thing seems to have died down, so this is the best we've got.

Nobody here has really seen his birth certificate, you know? I mean the long form.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

Of course you never would, no matter what he would do.

 

[fatness]

As much as I care about immigration, it's not a primary issue right now. Why did so many people vote for Republicans Tuesday night? Because they don't like the way Obama is handling affairs. Specifically, they don't like so many people being out of work.

Compared to this one issue, immigration and Obamacare and women's issues and race and gay rights and Ebola and ISIS and everything else all need to take a back seat. We need a more vibrant economy. We need more jobs. And the public really doesn't give a damn which ideology, liberal or conservative, produces those jobs so long as they're produced.

They don't like his policies and they don't like him or how he has behaved.

Behaved?

 

[pizzatyme]

But, he's going to spend the next 2 years doing things to make the world a better place. I guess that includes the USA?!

 

[TobiasFunke]

It is appropriate that it took less than 24 hours after the midterm elections for a thread about those elections to devolve into angry conservatives posting nonsensical anti-Obama rants. I suspect the incoming Congress produced by those elections will very much resemble the thread.

 

[fatness]

So the Republicans add to their majority in the House, take control of the Senate, say they have a mandate, and their plan is ........ it depends on what Obama does.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's not a good "politician", he doesn't seem to want to make compromise. Even with his own party. He only cares about what can provide him with a political advantage. He's also egotistical, aloof, and thin-skinned, and has nothing but contempt for the public.

House Republicans aren't making compromises with House Democrats. Senate Democrats aren't making compromises with Senate Republicans. Yet when Obama isn't making compromises with House Republicans or Senate Republicans, it's due to his short-comings? Not even Henry Clay could make headway with the people we've elected.

 

[Aerial Assault]

It was a good 24 to 36-hour run.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's not a good "politician", he doesn't seem to want to make compromise. Even with his own party. He only cares about what can provide him with a political advantage. He's also egotistical, aloof, and thin-skinned, and has nothing but contempt for the public.

House Republicans aren't making compromises with House Democrats. Senate Democrats aren't making compromises with Senate Republicans. Yet when Obama isn't making compromises with House Republicans or Senate Republicans, it's due to his short-comings?

Just to make sure my comment was clear: I don't fault the guy at all, nor do I assign him any shortcomings, for any aloof qualities he might display towards members of Congress. So many of them are just contemptible clowns.

 

[pizzatyme]

Is it even possible to compromise with a Harry Reid or Ted Cruz?

 

[Slapdash]

As much as I care about immigration, it's not a primary issue right now. Why did so many people vote for Republicans Tuesday night? Because they don't like the way Obama is handling affairs. Specifically, they don't like so many people being out of work.

Compared to this one issue, immigration and Obamacare and women's issues and race and gay rights and Ebola and ISIS and everything else all need to take a back seat. We need a more vibrant economy. We need more jobs. And the public really doesn't give a damn which ideology, liberal or conservative, produces those jobs so long as they're produced.

They don't like his policies and they don't like him or how he has behaved.

Behaved?

He has been getting pretty uppity.

 

[timschochet]

It is possible to compromise with a Rob Portman, a Susan Collins, a Dianne Feinstein, and (I hope) a Barack Obama and a Mitch McConnell. There are plenty of people on both sides who are still responsible and truly want what's best for the country. We just need to listen to them more and follow their lead.

 

[GoBirds]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's not a good "politician", he doesn't seem to want to make compromise. Even with his own party. He only cares about what can provide him with a political advantage. He's also egotistical, aloof, and thin-skinned, and has nothing but contempt for the public.

House Republicans aren't making compromises with House Democrats. Senate Democrats aren't making compromises with Senate Republicans. Yet when Obama isn't making compromises with House Republicans or Senate Republicans, it's due to his short-comings? Not even Henry Clay could make headway with the people we've elected.

Isn't he our "leader".

 

[jon_mx]

Did all you cons have huge problems with all of GWB's signing statements?

Here's an example of what's wrong with executive authority:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/04/393988/-Bush-Signing-Statement-Gonzales-Lies-Concealed-Torture-Policy#

There was a law, created by Congress. President looks at that law, decides it's inconvenient, consults with AG, AG advises hey you know what you don't need to follow that law, sign an EO. Done.

Good example. I'm reminded that you're by far my favorite conservative on this board, and one of the only ones with any sense.

Now if only there was one liberal poster who had any redeeming qualities.

 

[jonessed]

It is appropriate that it took less than 24 hours after the midterm elections for a thread about those elections to devolve into angry conservatives posting nonsensical anti-Obama rants. I suspect the incoming Congress produced by those elections will very much resemble the thread.

The President is threatening executive action this year based on the inaction of a Congress that won't even convene until next year.

Talk about nonsensical.

 

[urbanhack]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's has nothing but contempt for the public.

Can you give some examples that show this?

 

[jon_mx]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's has nothing but contempt for the public.

Can you give some examples that show this?

He still hasn't vistied all 57 states like he promised.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Did all you cons have huge problems with all of GWB's signing statements?

Here's an example of what's wrong with executive authority:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/04/393988/-Bush-Signing-Statement-Gonzales-Lies-Concealed-Torture-Policy#

There was a law, created by Congress. President looks at that law, decides it's inconvenient, consults with AG, AG advises hey you know what you don't need to follow that law, sign an EO. Done.

Good example. I'm reminded that you're by far my favorite conservative on this board, and one of the only ones with any sense.

Yet one page ago Saints was making the "Obama doesn't know much about the Constitution, he wasn't a real law professor" argument.

I like him as a poster, but he's just a shade less crazy than the jon_mx, Jim11 crew.

 

[tommyboy]

Hard to believe this guy, an adjunct teacher at U of Chi night law school, was passed off as a Constitutional Law professor. If he's studied it, it's only to see how it can be deconstructed.

He wasn't an adjunct, he was something like a "lecturer" or something. He was apparently offered a tenure-track position but turned it down. I'm not sure where you're getting your "night law school" thing, I'm pretty sure the University of Chicago doesn't even have a night school.

Professors write and publish. Instructors or lecturers take a book and teach classes out of it. Any lawyer can show up and be a lecturer if the law school hires him/her.

Here's the syllabus from one of Obama's main classes, put out by the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/Obama_CoursePk.pdf

Here's a paper from UNC on it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2131395

"Current Issues in Racism and the Law.” He taught this for about 12 years, 1992-2004, let me know if you see anything on federalism or Article I, II, or II powers there.

Those 2 days of governing were sweet.

But here we are, back to why Obama's not qualified to be president, same old thing for the last 6 years.

Too many people in the GOP are too angry at Obama to let their party try to compromise with him to solve problems. They want their part to go get him, to get him back, to make him pay. A party can't feed and thrive off that kind of anger, get many candidates elected as a result of it, and then just walk away from it. The anger needs to be fed.

Great theater coming up.

I think Obama has pretty much proven he's not qualified all by himself, and the GOP isn't angry at Obama as much as there's going to be some payback to senate Dems. It will be interesting to see which way the R's go here, they can go nuclear and get really pissy (ted cruz) or go pragmatist and try to fix some stuff that the Dems and Obama don't want to fix. If they choose option 2, then excpect to see a steady stream of bills sent to Obama that will box him into a corner where if he vetos he'll look like the bad guy.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Did all you cons have huge problems with all of GWB's signing statements?

Here's an example of what's wrong with executive authority:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/04/393988/-Bush-Signing-Statement-Gonzales-Lies-Concealed-Torture-Policy#

There was a law, created by Congress. President looks at that law, decides it's inconvenient, consults with AG, AG advises hey you know what you don't need to follow that law, sign an EO. Done.

Good example. I'm reminded that you're by far my favorite conservative on this board, and one of the only ones with any sense.

Yet one page ago Saints was making the "Obama doesn't know much about the Constitution, he wasn't a real law professor" argument.

I like him as a poster, but he's just a shade less crazy than the jon_mx, Jim11 crew.

I don't think I'd lump him in with that crew. He says some things off the wall at times but he's honest enough to clarify, qualify, correct. IMO anyways based on many years of reading here. He's also at least thoughtful and engages without the usual nonsense that most of those other types spew out.

 

[tommyboy]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's not a good "politician", he doesn't seem to want to make compromise. Even with his own party. He only cares about what can provide him with a political advantage. He's also egotistical, aloof, and thin-skinned, and has nothing but contempt for the public.

House Republicans aren't making compromises with House Democrats. Senate Democrats aren't making compromises with Senate Republicans. Yet when Obama isn't making compromises with House Republicans or Senate Republicans, it's due to his short-comings? Not even Henry Clay could make headway with the people we've elected.

that's what good presidents do. Obama is not a good president.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Did all you cons have huge problems with all of GWB's signing statements?

Here's an example of what's wrong with executive authority:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/04/393988/-Bush-Signing-Statement-Gonzales-Lies-Concealed-Torture-Policy#

There was a law, created by Congress. President looks at that law, decides it's inconvenient, consults with AG, AG advises hey you know what you don't need to follow that law, sign an EO. Done.

Good example. I'm reminded that you're by far my favorite conservative on this board, and one of the only ones with any sense.

Yet one page ago Saints was making the "Obama doesn't know much about the Constitution, he wasn't a real law professor" argument.

I like him as a poster, but he's just a shade less crazy than the jon_mx, Jim11 crew.

I don't think I'd lump him in with that crew. He says some things off the wall at times but he's honest enough to clarify, qualify, correct. IMO anyways based on many years of reading here. He's also at least thoughtful and engages without the usual nonsense that most of those other types spew out.

True. Saints is a smart dude, which makes it all the more puzzling when he goes Glenn Beck conspiracy theory on us.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's not a good "politician", he doesn't seem to want to make compromise. Even with his own party. He only cares about what can provide him with a political advantage. He's also egotistical, aloof, and thin-skinned, and has nothing but contempt for the public.

House Republicans aren't making compromises with House Democrats. Senate Democrats aren't making compromises with Senate Republicans. Yet when Obama isn't making compromises with House Republicans or Senate Republicans, it's due to his short-comings? Not even Henry Clay could make headway with the people we've elected.

that's what good presidents do. Obama is not a good president.

At this rate, from a pure economic numbers standpoint (market performance, jobs created, etc.) he's going to go down as one of the all time greats.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's not a good "politician", he doesn't seem to want to make compromise. Even with his own party. He only cares about what can provide him with a political advantage. He's also egotistical, aloof, and thin-skinned, and has nothing but contempt for the public.

House Republicans aren't making compromises with House Democrats. Senate Democrats aren't making compromises with Senate Republicans. Yet when Obama isn't making compromises with House Republicans or Senate Republicans, it's due to his short-comings? Not even Henry Clay could make headway with the people we've elected.

that's what good presidents do. Obama is not a good president.

At this rate, from a pure economic numbers standpoint (market performance, jobs created, etc.) he's going to go down as one of the all time greats.

Is it just me or does it seem like Obama does not really like to work with any senators or congressman? Obviously we know he has not tried to work much with the republicans in his 6 years so far, but it doesn't seem like he has done a whole lot of working with the democrats either.

He just doesn't seem interested in getting everyone together in a room and saying "okay let's hammer this out" with whatever issue they are dealing with.

Maybe he just likes campaigning and giving speeches (which he is good at) and doesn't like the actual work that the president is supposed to do.

I am really not trying to rag on him because I am a republican; I didn't like Clinton as a person, but he seemed to be at least willing to work with the republicans to get some things done. I am curious to see whether Obama can

do that as well (assuming the republicans don't take a "my way or the highway" approach).

It's not just you; I've thought this for years. It's a poorly-guarded secret that he hated the Senate because of the petty squabbling. Hence the stab at a presidential run, and what do ya know. Then the nonsense with the passage of the ACA - as much from Democrats as Republicans - pretty much seems to have soured him on Congress. I can't say I really blame him.

He's not a good "politician", he doesn't seem to want to make compromise. Even with his own party. He only cares about what can provide him with a political advantage. He's also egotistical, aloof, and thin-skinned, and has nothing but contempt for the public.

House Republicans aren't making compromises with House Democrats. Senate Democrats aren't making compromises with Senate Republicans. Yet when Obama isn't making compromises with House Republicans or Senate Republicans, it's due to his short-comings? Not even Henry Clay could make headway with the people we've elected.

that's what good presidents do. Obama is not a good president.

At this rate, from a pure economic numbers standpoint (market performance, jobs created, etc.) he's going to go down as one of the all time greats.

You mean the numbers that show people on food stamps is at an all time high? If he is doing so great why did the Dems lose like they did on Tuesday night and why are his approval numbers so low?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The best part of the GOP gaining all these seats is the Daily Show is just going to be that much better.

 

[Stinger Ray]

The best part of the GOP gaining all these seats is the Daily Show is just going to be that much better.

I know....it will give Stewart even more reasons to make fun of Obama,

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The best part of the GOP gaining all these seats is the Daily Show is just going to be that much better.

I know....it will give Stewart even more reasons to make fun of Obama,

Yeah, no. Joni "loves Chachi" Ernst is going to provide enough material to last two lifetimes. You're just salty because conservatives have no sense of humor, hence no top-rated comedy shows. Who's gonna host? Newt?

 

[Stinger Ray]

The best part of the GOP gaining all these seats is the Daily Show is just going to be that much better.

I know....it will give Stewart even more reasons to make fun of Obama,

Yeah, no. Joni "loves Chachi" Ernst is going to provide enough material to last two lifetimes. You're just salty because conservatives have no sense of humor, hence no top-rated comedy shows. Who's gonna host? Newt?

I enjoy all the material Obama has provided Stewart and other comedy shows. I have a great sense of humor. Two more years!!

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Political satire is really the best.

 

[timschochet]

I hate to take issue with tgunz whom I respect very much, but crediting Obama for jobs created? IMO, the main reason so many Republicans won on Tuesday was that there just aren't enough jobs. Wall Street may be happy, but people are suffering.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I hate to take issue with tgunz whom I respect very much, but crediting Obama for jobs created? IMO, the main reason so many Republicans won on Tuesday was that there just aren't enough jobs. Wall Street may be happy, but people are suffering.

That is today's America. The jobs are coming back, but they are crappy service jobs. I did hear today that the Bourbon industry is doing well and Makers Mart CEO said people are making $90k a year down there. Maybe someone should alert Bentley.

 

[timschochet]

I hate to take issue with tgunz whom I respect very much, but crediting Obama for jobs created? IMO, the main reason so many Republicans won on Tuesday was that there just aren't enough jobs. Wall Street may be happy, but people are suffering.

That is today's America. The jobs are coming back, but they are crappy service jobs. I did hear today that the Bourbon industry is doing well and Makers Mart CEO said people are making $90k a year down there. Maybe someone should alert Bentley.

Well, so long as the jobs aren't there, every election is likely to throw out the incumbents. We can forget about any long term coherent strategies. Like hiring a new head coach every year as the team continues to lose.

 

[Fennis]

I hate to take issue with tgunz whom I respect very much, but crediting Obama for jobs created? IMO, the main reason so many Republicans won on Tuesday was that there just aren't enough jobs. Wall Street may be happy, but people are suffering.

That is today's America. The jobs are coming back, but they are crappy service jobs. I did hear today that the Bourbon industry is doing well and Makers Mart CEO said people are making $90k a year down there. Maybe someone should alert Bentley.

Well, so long as the jobs aren't there, every election is likely to throw out the incumbents. We can forget about any long term coherent strategies. Like hiring a new head coach every year as the team continues to lose.

throw out incumbents?

25 out of 28 incumbent governors won reelection

332 out of 335 congressional incumbents won their primaries

25 out of 28 incumbent Senators won reelection (LA still TBD)

In the House 13 incumbents lost

 

[timschochet]

I hate to take issue with tgunz whom I respect very much, but crediting Obama for jobs created? IMO, the main reason so many Republicans won on Tuesday was that there just aren't enough jobs. Wall Street may be happy, but people are suffering.

That is today's America. The jobs are coming back, but they are crappy service jobs. I did hear today that the Bourbon industry is doing well and Makers Mart CEO said people are making $90k a year down there. Maybe someone should alert Bentley.

Well, so long as the jobs aren't there, every election is likely to throw out the incumbents. We can forget about any long term coherent strategies. Like hiring a new head coach every year as the team continues to lose.

throw out incumbents?

25 out of 28 incumbent governors won reelection

332 out of 335 congressional incumbents won their primaries

25 out of 28 incumbent Senators won reelection (LA still TBD)

In the House 13 incumbents lost

good point. I stated that wrong; let me correct myself: so long as jobs aren't there, the public is likely to support whichever party does not hold the presidency.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Every president gets credited with the jobs created during their presidency Tim, fairly or unfairly. If the economy heats up over the next two years, as many economists expect, Obama's jobs numbers may trump St Reagans.

 

[timschochet]

Every president gets credited with the jobs created during their presidency Tim, fairly or unfairly. If the economy heats up over the next two years, as many economists expect, Obama's jobs numbers may trump St Reagans.

And if that happens we can credit him then. But doing it now seems ill - advised , especially when so many people are out of work and struggling .

 

[Slapdash]

Every president gets credited with the jobs created during their presidency Tim, fairly or unfairly. If the economy heats up over the next two years, as many economists expect, Obama's jobs numbers may trump St Reagans.

Tells the story: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

 

[jon_mx]

Are Democrats trying to change the subject since having thier butts handed to them by a party they declared dead?

 

[Aerial Assault]

Are Democrats trying to change the subject since having thier butts handed to them by a party they declared dead?

Sorry; what did you want to talk about?

 

[TPW]

Every president gets credited with the jobs created during their presidency Tim, fairly or unfairly. If the economy heats up over the next two years, as many economists expect, Obama's jobs numbers may trump St Reagans.

Tells the story: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

I'd be interested to see those numbers adjusted for relative population size and cost of living. There are almost 100 million more people in the United States now than when Ronald Reagan took office and the U.S. dollar has lost more than 50% of its value.

 

[fatness]

It will be interesting to see which way the R's go here, they can go nuclear and get really pissy (ted cruz) or go pragmatist and try to fix some stuff that the Dems and Obama don't want to fix. If they choose option 2, then excpect to see a steady stream of bills sent to Obama that will box him into a corner where if he vetos he'll look like the bad guy.

I agree it'll be interesting. There's a big opportunity to work out some practical solutions. But to get those solutions passed and signed by the president it'll take some compromise and too many Republicans won't tolerate that. I do not think either alternative you mention is aimed at getting things done. Going nuclear, or boxing Obama in, are both forms of "get him back". There's way too much "Get him back" sentiment among Republicans to actually try solutions that involve compromise, in my opinion.

So much for governing.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It will be interesting to see which way the R's go here, they can go nuclear and get really pissy (ted cruz) or go pragmatist and try to fix some stuff that the Dems and Obama don't want to fix. If they choose option 2, then excpect to see a steady stream of bills sent to Obama that will box him into a corner where if he vetos he'll look like the bad guy.

I agree it'll be interesting. There's a big opportunity to work out some practical solutions. But to get those solutions passed and signed by the president it'll take some compromise and too many Republicans won't tolerate that. I do not think either alternative you mention is aimed at getting things done. Going nuclear, or boxing Obama in, are both forms of "get him back". There's way too much "Get him back" sentiment among Republicans to actually try solutions that involve compromise, in my opinion.

So much for governing.

The idea that boxing the president into a corner in the hopes that he will veto and look like the bad guy is the "pragmatist" option says quite a bit about the current state of the GOP/politics in general.

 

[timschochet]

Fatness and Tobias, I'm not sure I agree with you guys here. What this really comes down to is the struggle within the GOP between the establishment and the conservative base. You guys seem to assume that the conservative base has won this struggle and that they will dictate how Obama is to be dealt with.

I'm not so sure of this. And the conservative base isn't either , which is why guys like Ted Cruz, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and several others have spent the last few days warning their fellow Republicans that they had "better live up to their promises ". Suddenly Barack Obama is not the biggest enemy in the room; it's Mitch McConnell.

 

[jon_mx]

Are Democrats trying to change the subject since having thier butts handed to them by a party they declared dead?

Sorry; what did you want to talk about?

Yoga pants.