obama & the socialists "Quitting"

[Team Sergeant]

Nice headline, "President Concedes".

Seems the "socialists" do understand what happened in Massachusetts and want no part of it. Want to bet more of the socialists/democrats "distance" themselves from obama.....

Yup he made history alright, "worst" in the history of the United States. (jimmy carter is laughing his ass off right now.)

Already a "Lame duck"........
TS



President Concedes Health Care Effort May Die in Congress
Obama now signals the bill may die in Congress.

WASHINGTON -- No, maybe he can't.

President Barack Obama, who insisted he would succeed where other presidents had failed to fix the nation's health care system, now concedes the effort may die in Congress.

The president's newly conflicting signals could frustrate Democratic lawmakers who are hungry for guidance from the White House as they try to salvage the effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and hold down spiraling medical costs. Obama's comments Thursday night came hours after Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy, leaving Democrats without their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Obama's signature health legislation with no clear path forward.

"I think it's very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks, and then let's go ahead and make a decision," Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser.

"And it may be that ... if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," the president said. "And that's how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they'll be able to make a determination and register their concerns."

It appeared to be a shift in tone for the issue the "Yes we can" candidate campaigned on and made the centerpiece of his domestic agenda last year. In a speech to a joint session of Congress in September, Obama declared: "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. ... Here and now we will meet history's test."

Sweeping health legislation to extend medical coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans passed the House and Senate last year and was on the verge of completion -- though there were still disagreements between the two houses -- before Brown's upset victory last month in a special election in Massachusetts. Since then it has been in limbo, and Obama has not publicly offered specifics to help lawmakers move forward. Congressional aides felt his remarks Thursday did not clarify matters.

"The next step is what I announced at the State of the Union, which is to call on our Republican friends to present their ideas. What I'd like to do is have a meeting whereby I'm sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts, and let's just go through these bills. ... And then I think that we've got to go ahead and move forward on a vote," Obama said Thursday shortly after a White House meeting with Democratic congressional leaders that produced no apparent progress on health care.

"I think we should be very deliberate, take our time. We're going to be moving a jobs package forward over the next several weeks; that's the thing that's most urgent right now in the minds of Americans all across the country."

"Here's the key, is to not let the moment slip away," Obama also said.

White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said the president's position has not changed and he will not walk away from health care reform. "He used his remarks last night to motivate Democrats to come together and get this done, noting that the public will judge their leaders on what they accomplish," Cherlin said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that there was no meeting set for the president to talk over health care strategy with Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The GOP has shown more interest in opposing Democrats on the issue than in working with them.

continued:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews

[dadof18x'er]

might be a rope a dope.....I don't trust em

[bandycpa]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

"The next step is what I announced at the State of the Union, which is to call on our Republican friends to present their ideas. What I'd like to do is have a meeting whereby I'm sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts, and let's just go through these bills. ... And then I think that we've got to go ahead and move forward on a vote," Obama said Thursday shortly after a White House meeting with Democratic congressional leaders that produced no apparent progress on health care.

What a difference a year makes. Wasn't this the same person who told the Republicans in Jan 2009 "I won"?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


Bandy

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by bandycpa

What a difference a year makes. Wasn't this the same person who told the Republicans in Jan 2009 "I won"?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


Bandy

now he's getting up a head of steam...http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Sigaba]

<<SNIP>>

"I think it's very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks, and then let's go ahead and make a decision," [the president said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser.

"And it may be that ... if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," the president said. "And that's how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they'll be able to make a determination and register their concerns."

<<SNIP>>

"The next step is what I announced at the State of the Union, which is to call on our Republican friends to present their ideas. What I'd like to do is have a meeting whereby I'm sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts, and let's just go through these bills. ... And then I think that we've got to go ahead and move forward on a vote," [the president] said Thursday shortly after a White House meeting with Democratic congressional leaders that produced no apparent progress on health care.

"I think we should be very deliberate, take our time. We're going to be moving a jobs package forward over the next several weeks; that's the thing that's most urgent right now in the minds of Americans all across the country."

<<SNIP>>

IMO, the sensibilities highlighted in green should have shaped the president's approach from day one. Had he genuinely wanted to understand dissenting views and to consider alternate proposals, I think the public outcry would not have been so widespread.

It is interesting how he relegates public participation in the health care debate just to elections. It sounds like he only reads letters from Americans that agree with his viewpoint.

I do not buy his conciliatory tone for a moment. I think he's preening and posturing to his base so he can look like 'the good guy.'

It is just a matter of time before he starts blowing on his one note trumpet about the problems he "inherited."

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IMO, the sensibilities highlighted in green should have shaped the president's approach from day one. Had he genuinely wanted to understand dissenting views and to consider alternate proposals, I think the public outcry would not have been so widespread.

It is interesting how he relegates public participation in the health care debate just to elections. It sounds like he only reads letters from Americans that agree with his viewpoint.

I do not buy his conciliatory tone for a moment. I think he's preening and posturing to his base so he can look like 'the good guy.' It is just a matter of time before he starts blowing on his one note trumpet about the problems he "inherited."

I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I, I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I, I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I, I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I, I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,

I heard his last speech....... the I's have it.......

[Ret10Echo]

I have been considering the recent turn of events (politically) and I see a couple of angles that seem to be consistent with the current dialogue.

1. Americans love underdogs. What a great way to garner support even when you are the majority party. Lull the other side of the aisle into a sense of self-confidence and defuze the outrage.

2. A good approach to sway the Dims that were/are on the fringe. Pull the heartstrings and show sad puppy-dog eyes. (We're getting picked on...you gotta save us).


Zero wants nothing more than for the American people to start watching Survivor reruns again.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

I have been considering the recent turn of events (politically) and I see a couple of angles that seem to be consistent with the current dialogue.

1. Americans love underdogs. What a great way to garner support even when you are the majority party. Lull the other side of the aisle into a sense of self-confidence and defuze the outrage.

2. A good approach to sway the Dims that were/are on the fringe. Pull the heartstrings and show sad puppy-dog eyes. (We're getting picked on...you gotta save us).


Zero wants nothing more than for the American people to start watching Survivor reruns again.

I agree, cept instead he wants them watching "oprah".

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I agree, cept instead he wants them watching "oprah".

I can't type that w_rd. I ripped the "_" _ff my keyb_ard ab_ut 6 m_nths ag_.

[Pete]

At least with a vampire you can drive a stake through it's heart and kill it.

We'll need far more than that to kill this generation's worth of lib - excuse me Richard - progressive ideas.

[Detonics]

I don't see them "quitting." More like a fall back for strategy review.

For some interesting reading on the administration's "end game" go here:

discoverthenetworks.org


" * Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis



First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven (today Piven is an honorary chair for the Democratic Socialists of America), the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, left wing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act."

I was aware of Saul Alinsky's writings but Cloward & Piven had gone under the radar.

It is way too early to declare victory and write off Obama as a quitter or as a loser. We are stuck with him for three more years. So much time for so much to happen. In about two years the campaign for the next presidential election will begin. If domestic policy is his only focus until then, even with a victory or two, I doubt he will be reelected.

As strange as some find this proposition, I believe that foreign policy offers his best hope for reelection. Not any success he may have in foreign policy, but in spectacular failure. The US attacking Iran, Israel attacking Iran, Iran exploding an atomic bomb either for show or for death or a serious terrorist success on our soil has the most potential. Not even in my darkest moments do I believe Obama may "wag the dog" just to get elected. But I fear his natural predilections will leave us progressively more vulnerable and such an event may very well get him reelected provided he handles the response in any affirmative way.

I hope I'm wrong in both my analysis and my fears, but we'll see...

[mark46th]

Democrats/Liberals are like Palestinians- Leave 'em alone, they'll kill themselves off...