The Admitted Inadequacy of Obama

[tPA]

Here was Barack Obama on “60 Minutes” a full nine days ago:
CQ Politics | Transcript: Obama on CBS’ “60 Minutes�

KROFT: Why you? I mean, why do you think you would be a good president?

OBAMA: Well, I was going to get to that.

KROFT: Go ahead.

OBAMA: You know, I’m a, I’m a practical person. One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground and a sense of common direction.

Now here he was yesterday, explaining why he eschewed playing a leadership role during the current crisis, and never considered sullying his hands with something as quotidian as “finding common ground” with Republicans on the Hill:
Obama: 'Put the Fire Out' on Economic Crisis

"I don't think me calling House Republican members would have been that helpful. I tend not to be that persuasive on that side of the aisle."

Notice how he frames the failure: "I tend not to be that persuasive on that side of the aisle." As I interpret it, it's not his failure, it's "that side of the aisle"'s fault.

Thoughts?

[Median]

Quote by: tPA Here was Barack Obama on “60 Minutes” a full nine days ago: CQ Politics | Transcript: Obama on CBS’ “60 Minutesâ€� KROFT: Why you? I mean, why do you think you would be a good president? OBAMA: Well, I was going to get to that. KROFT: Go ahead. OBAMA: You know, I’m a, I’m a practical person. One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground and a sense of common direction. Now here he was yesterday, explaining why he eschewed playing a leadership role during the current crisis, and never considered sullying his hands with something as quotidian as “finding common ground” with Republicans on the Hill: Obama: 'Put the Fire Out' on Economic Crisis "I don't think me calling House Republican members would have been that helpful. I tend not to be that persuasive on that side of the aisle." Notice how he frames the failure: "I tend not to be that persuasive on that side of the aisle." As I interpret it, it's not his failure, it's "that side of the aisle"'s fault. Thoughts?

The first is a general situational skill he suggests he possesses, the second is a particular location and people that he admits don't always follow what he says.
You are using the exception to disprove the rule.

[tPA]

Quote by: Median The first is a general situational skill he suggests he possesses, the second is a particular location and people that he admits don't always follow what he says. You are using the exception to disprove the rule.

OK, so perhaps you can provide an example of when he has worked with the opposite side on something where there was "violent disagreement" and he hammered out a common solution...

[Median]

Quote by: tPA OK, so perhaps you can provide an example of when he has worked with the opposite side on something where there was "violent disagreement" and he hammered out a common solution...

" You know, I’m a, I’m a practical person. One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground and a sense of common direction. "

He never says the opposite side ( im assuming your referring to republicans ) he says
" different ideas " and I have not read his biography, i dont know of any issues he has helped two sides come to a solution on.

[tPA]

Quote by: Median " You know, I’m a, I’m a practical person. One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground and a sense of common direction. " He never says the opposite side ( im assuming your referring to republicans ) he says " different ideas " and I have not read his biography, i dont know of any issues he has helped two sides come to a solution on.

First, I think it's a reasonable assumption that he is trying to portray himself as bipartisan, and such quotes ("a bunch of different ideas") leads people to think he can work with Republicans and Democrats alike (despite his 97% "Liberal" rating, the highest in the Senate).

Secondly, you needn't read a biography Examine his voting record. Oh, right, he hasn't one...

[Median]

Quote by: tPA First, I think it's a reasonable assumption that he is trying to portray himself as bipartisan, and such quotes ("a bunch of different ideas") leads people to think he can work with Republicans and Democrats alike (despite his 97% "Liberal" rating, the highest in the Senate). Secondly, you needn't read a biography Examine his voting record. Oh, right, he hasn't one...

Your still assuming.
He is doing what a candidate must, does any president have to deal with both republicans and democrats? Yes.
Is any candidate going to say they are bad at mediating a conflict?No.

Republicans and democrats are people first of all, Obama is very charismatic as every analyst says, so why cant he mediate a group of people?

[tPA]

Quote by: Median Your still assuming. He is doing what a candidate must, does any president have to deal with both republicans and democrats? Yes. Is any candidate going to say they are bad at mediating a conflict?No. Republicans and democrats are people first of all, Obama is very charismatic as every analyst says, so why cant he mediate a group of people?

I said "reasonable assumption." Do you disagree that he's trying to show he's bipartisan (in his ads, his speeches, his actions)?

Will Obama have to deal with Republicans and Democrats? Not for long, given that there is a Democratic majority in both houses... How much "mediating" do you think he's going to do if he's elected? Based on what we see of him, I think it will be a much more didactic (though "charismatic") approach. He's an Alinskyite, and it shows.

[Median]

Quote by: tPA I said "reasonable assumption." Do you disagree that he's trying to show he's bipartisan (in his ads, his speeches, his actions)? Will Obama have to deal with Republicans and Democrats? Not for long, given that there is a Democratic majority in both houses... How much "mediating" do you think he's going to do if he's elected? Based on what we see of him, I think it will be a much more didactic (though "charismatic") approach. He's an Alinskyite, and it shows.

Do people get in party without being elected? your forgetting the majority of the US supports this or it would never happen.

Have you honestly liked the republican administration the last 8 years? common.

[tPA]

Quote by: Median Do people get in party without being elected? your forgetting the majority of the US supports this or it would never happen. Have you honestly liked the republican administration the last 8 years? common.

I am not sure I understand what, specifically, "the majority of the US supports." The bailout? Bipartisanship?

I don't like everything the Bush administration has done, no. Less so now, with this ridiculous Socialist scheme to bail out the financial sector. Still not sure what this has to do with Obama's far-left associations, voting history, and future plans (and his pretended "bipartisanship").

[RickSp]

If Obama interjected himself into ongoing negotiations, he would have had the same effect that McSame did when he tanked the talks the first time for his photo op/publicity stunt. That worked really well.

John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi had a deal to line up the votes on each side of the aisle. The Dems agreed to deliver 120 votes and delivered 140. The Republicans promised 80 votes and only got 65.

To suggest that Obama jump into the center of talks with the Republican House members is simply bizarre. If they refused to go along with their own leadership, why should they pay attention to the Democratic nominee? And of course, McCain brought nothing to the table whatsoever, but so what else is new?

The only inadequacy is see here is in your argument.

[tPA]

Quote by: RickSp If Obama interjected himself into ongoing negotiations, he would have had the same effect that McSame did when he tanked the talks the first time for his photo op/publicity stunt. That worked really well. John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi had a deal to line up the votes on each side of the aisle. The Dems agreed to deliver 120 votes and delivered 140. The Republicans promised 80 votes and only got 65. To suggest that Obama jump into the center of talks with the Republican House members is simply bizarre. If they refused to go along with their own leadership, why should they pay attention to the Democratic nominee? And of course, McCain brought nothing to the table whatsoever, but so what else is new? The only inadequacy is see here is in your argument.

I despise the party system as it is, anyway. At least Republicans had enough sack to do what their constituents wanted.

And Obama is hailed as a great orator and uniter--he can't get all of his people, and some of his opponents, on board, with his soaring oratory and prophetic promises?

[RickSp]

Quote by: tPA IAnd Obama is hailed as a great orator and uniter--he can't get all of his people, and some of his opponents, on board, with his soaring oratory and prophetic promises?

Are you paying attention to what is happening here? You seem to be making unfocused attacks on Obama that have nothing to do with what transpired.

The deal that was struck was in the House of Representatives. It was negotiated between Pelosi and Boehner. Obama was involved in the discussions, but did not impose himself into the negotiations. He is after all, a Senator, not a member of the House.

The Democrats delivered on their side of the bargain and the Republicans didn't. And for this you blame Obama? Odd.

[tPA]

Quote by: RickSp Are you paying attention to what is happening here? You seem to be making unfocused attacks on Obama that have nothing to do with what transpired. The deal that was struck was in the House of Representatives. It was negotiated between Pelosi and Boehner. Obama was involved in the discussions, but did not impose himself into the negotiations. He is after all, a Senator, not a member of the House. The Democrats delivered on their side of the bargain and the Republicans didn't. And for this you blame Obama? Odd.

Wow, Obama is in the Senate. I had no idea. And as President, it's only the Senate with whom he will have to deal, too, I suppose.

I fault Obama (and his supporters) for claiming bipartisanship when he so clearly is partisan. He can't exhibit leadership as the Democratic nominee--how is he supposed to lead as President? This whole bailout deal reeks of "old Washington politics" anyway. Get just enough votes to ensure political safety as well as success on the bill. Not "vote on the bill for its merits, or against it for its flaws," but "vote on it because it's the politically wise/unwise thing to do." That's what this all has ended up being. At least a few Republicans stayed with the GOP's stated mission of not supporting government bailouts (from the 2008 GOP platform http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm#6).

I dislike the whole "bargain" thing. They are dealing with the future of the American economy, and seem to be more interested in the future of their political careers; they are choosing a path towards socialism or a path towards the free market, and in the process try to tack on earmarks and count the votes so that it will pass by those whose seats are safe, allowing those whose seats are in jepardy to vote "no."

It's a political liability, which is why the reception has been lukewarm from McCain and Obama alike. Neither wants to come out in strong support for it, at the risk of losing votes, nor do they want to come off as having no support for it, at the risk of seeming like they can't make abipartisan deal or exhibit strong leadership.

When it comes down to it, McCain was the darling of the established media, because he bucked Republicans time and time again. Republicans loathed the idea of getting stuck with him as their nominee, despite the fact that he's a Republican, for the numerous times that he has "reached across the aisle." He obviously works with both sides based on the merits of the issue, not based on the political liability. Obama has failed to make a substantive stand on a bipartisan deal throughout his entire political career (to "rehash a tired argument," I'm sure you are aware of how many times he voted "present").

[RickSp]

Wow, Obama is in the Senate. I had no idea.

That sums it up doesn't it.

Obviously the facts don't matter to you. You will launch an attack on Obama regardless of the circumstances.

Go ahead. Keep yourself amused.

[tPA]

Quote by: RickSp That sums it up doesn't it. Obviously the facts don't matter to you. You will launch an attack on Obama regardless of the circumstances. Go ahead. Keep yourself amused.

I have done nothing but state fact (and opinion rooted in fact).

You did catch the sarcasm in my "Obama's in the Senate" remark, didn't you?

I have based my attacks on Obama on facts. You have dodged or obfuscated them.

[RickSp]

The House Republicans revolted. Boehner couldn't manage them. McCain didn't try. So it must be Obama's fault. Really insightful. Blaming Obama for the actions of House Republicans is idiotic on its face.

[tPA]

Quote by: RickSp The House Republicans revolted. Boehner couldn't manage them. McCain didn't try. So it must be Obama's fault. Really insightful. Blaming Obama for the actions of House Republicans is idiotic on its face.

Yeah, Nancy Pelosi's ridiculous speech before the vote had nothing to do with it, either.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tPA Yeah, Nancy Pelosi's ridiculous speech before the vote had nothing to do with it, either.

LOL. Now you are joining in with the whimpy, whining legislators who put their hurt feelings before the interests of the country? Well isn't that special?

[Median]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. Now you are joining in with the whimpy, whining legislators who put their hurt feelings before the interests of the country? Well isn't that special?

true.

[Sockem]

Has anyone challenged the fact that Obama has voted with his party 95% of the time, or just more ad hom? Real bi-partisan.