Target GOP: Obama Takes Aim at Boehner, Barton

…..maybe the three of them ought to have a few beers…after all, birds of a feather drink together.

Obama is just as out of touch with the people…..just in a different way.
He thinks his way, is the only way, even when the majority of citizens tell him they don’t want his way!

“President Obama will target House Minority Leader John Boehner and Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas, painting them as out of touch with the American people.” – ABC News
Gee, Mr. President, if you want to be a leader and bring people together why not make your speech Bi-Partisen? How about including some Democrats who are out of touch with the American People. There are plenty to choose from.
“I was stunned to hear the leader of the Republicans in the House say that financial reform was like using a nuclear weapon to target an ant.” – Barack Insane Obama
Gee Mr. President, maybe those people were trying to use a metaphor to point out that you Progressives are using the wrong weapon at the wrong target. Does the financial reform include a minimum 10% deposit on home purchases? You are smart enough to understand the metaphor aren’t you Mr. President? You are still playing your spin game, right?

13,000 private sector jobs created in June, the first month of the “summer of recovery”. Keep up the good work, how about another stimulus?
pauldia | Jun 30, 2010 12:14:33 PM
June 2008: (62,000) jobs LOST
June 2009: (467,000) LOST
June 2010: 13,000 PRIVATE jobs added (funny how that qualifier doesn’t count when we’re looking at jobs lost)
As many economists argued in 2008, the stimulus needed to be bigger to fill the gap left by private retrenchment. But it is undeniable that the economy is doing MUCH better than in the past couple of years, with the bottoming out point (coincidentally I’m sure) right about the time Obama came into office.

Obama is real good at changing the topic.What does he have to say about his phone call to the SEIU union official asking to have Valerie Jarrett appointed senator by Blago.Judge James Zagel stopped Blago’s attorney from asking Tom Balanoff(SEIU) a question concerning Obama during the trial.So between Zagel and the prosecutors headed by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald we have Obama being assisted in his stonewalling of his and his administration’s involvement with Blago.Hopefully,the press will not lie down on this story as they have for most of Obama’s tenure.

As many economists argued in 2008, the stimulus needed to be bigger to fill the gap left by private retrenchment. But it is undeniable that the economy is doing MUCH better than in the past couple of years…
Posted by: jhw539
One of those economists you cite, paul krugman, denied the undeniable in his most recent column. Why don’t you tell us why he is wrong?

Amazing the contempt Republicans have for our military when a Democratic administration dares to buck his party and give the generals what they ask for.
Posted by: jhw539 |
The last time Barry gave a general what he asked for, he fired McChrystal.

Funny how in the real world Obama campaigned on doing exactly what he’s doing and won a large victory in the last election, less than 2 years ago.
Posted by: jhw539 |
When did the President campaign on not closing Gitmo by the end of his “first” term. Please provide specific quotes and dates.

jhw539: “June 2008: (62,000) jobs LOST
June 2009: (467,000) LOST
June 2010: 13,000 PRIVATE jobs added (funny how that qualifier doesn’t count when we’re looking at jobs lost)”
It takes 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs per month to keep up with new workers just entering the workforce due to POPULATION growth alone. 13,000 private sector jobs after $800 BILLION in “stimulus” spending is positively PATHETIC, especially considering we have 24.7 MILLION people unemployed/underemployed (BLS U6). Obama claims that he “saved or created” 2.5 million jobs. That works out to $320,000 per job! Imagine what would have happened to employment if private businesses had that capital.
April 2010:
“All in all we’re going to be creating somewhere between 100[,000] and 200,000 jobs next month, I predict,” Joe Biden said, according to a pool report, adding that he “got in trouble” for a job growth prediction last month. “Even some in the White House said, ‘Hey, don’t get ahead of yourself.’ Well, I’m here to tell you, some time in the next couple of months, we’re going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month.”
We have record, chronic unemployment.
We have record foreclosures.
We have record bankruptcies.
We have record poverty.
We have record use of food stamps.
We have a record bank failure rate twice as high as last year.
So how are Obamanomics working out for you Joe?

“In a partisan speech on the economy in Racine, Wisc., today, President Obama will target House Minority Leader John Boehner and Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas, painting them as out of touch with the American people.”
Meanwhile, the oil spill continues to destroy commerce, tourism, livelihoods, and animal habitats on the Gulf Coast.
Obama’s speech in Wisconsin clearly demonstrates how in touch with the American people he is, don’t you think?

Obama has ALWAYS been partisen from the minute he said “I won” which was what, 2 weeks after he took office?

“Mr. Obama will also take the Republicans to task for Congressman Joe Barton’s apology to BP in the Tony Hayward hearing two weeks ago.” – ABC News
NoBo ought to let sleeping dogs lie.
He got away with his shakedown of BP.
It’s a plus for the People of the Gulf.
Trying to make political hay from his thug like dealing with BP is childish.
Learn to keep your mouth shut from time to time Mr. President.

Where are the jobs Obama?
Where are the jobs Obama?
Where are the jobs Obama?
Where are the jobs Obama?
Where are the jobs Obama?

Where are the jobs Obama?
Where are the jobs Obama?
Where are the jobs Obama?
Where are the jobs Obama?
Where are the jobs Obama?

The most divisive president ever. Can he do anything except blame others and take partisan pot shots at anyone who disagrees with him?? He is like a kid in the school yard that bullies and makes fun of other kids.

The rushies are out today!

Boehner: “This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon”
Obama: “That’s right. He compared the financial crisis to an ant.”
That’s wrong, Obama. He compared your financial reforms to an ant being killed with a nuclear weapon. His point wasn’t to liken the crisis to something small, but instead to liken your reforms to overkill. Either Obama is dense and didn’t understand Boehner’s comments, or he’s purposely twisting Boehner’s comments for partisan political gain. In either scenario, one thing is clear — Obama’s incompetence. When all else fails (and with Democrats it often does), blame Republicans.

Maybe Obama should look at his own party like Pete Stark who put on a horrible display of disdain for an American citizen.
Stark should be brought before Congress and horse whipped. I have never been so disgusted in an individual’s public behavior as what I have watched in the past few days.
Please, progressives, liberals, whatever… Try to defend Stark’s behavior. Just try please…

Do you cons ever look in a mirror?

It’s obvious that anything said to “defend” President Obama will be turned around to satisfy your warped thinking. It’s also apparent your kind has taken over the comments section and filled it with fox attack talking points. I’m going to go out and enjoy the evening instead of reading all the dribble you ooze. You all have a nice frustrated evening!

I agree with the president. These republicans are out of touch. the have wrecked our nation and they want to ride the president because he hasnt fixed it in a hurry.Just like the gulf spill, its gonna take time

After our economic house burned down in 1930, we installed a fire alarm system. Since that was torn out (by Republicans and Democrats) a small fire rapidly consumed the place again in 2007. Not only did Republicans seek to limit the amount of water Obama could put on it, they now want to stop him from reinstalling the alarm system.

This man doesn’t even know how to ACT like a President.

Posted by: Flash Override | Jun 30, 2010 7:16:05 PM
“National Debt”
Happy now?

The government needs to go into debt to finance future growth, acting exactly like ordinary families who go into debt to finance college.
Posted by: Flash Override | Jun 30, 2010 7:16:05 PM
Bwahahahahahahahahahah! The government is like an ordinary family? Oh, that is priceless! The government is more like the fools who bought half million dollar homes on a landscaper’s salary. Or like the family that has ten credit cards and then claims bankruptcy because they make fifteeen grand a year. The government isn’t ANYTHING like a responsible family who works hard to finance their child’s education.
How domyou come up with this stuff? Is the koolaid that strong where you live?

“Wait. So the economy crashed because of Bush’s huge deficit, and ”
Reading comprehension apparently is not a strong suit with right wingers.
She said deficit AND economic collapse, not deficit caused economic collapse.
Geez Mary, you’re as big a liar as the rest of the right wingers here.
“No Democratic Party leader ever complained about Bush’s spending, except to say that it was never enough.”
Yeah because unfunded mandates cause deficits as does cutting taxes while engaging in two wars.
The right wing…stuck on stupid.

“Reading comprehension apparently is not a strong suit with right wingers.
She said deficit AND economic collapse, not deficit caused economic collapse.”
Speaking of reading comprehension, my own was faulty.
I had assumed reading your post that tierra had posted this.

“Maybe Obama should look at his own party like Pete Stark who put on a horrible display of disdain for an American citizen.”
Good point.
He should have not have asked the racist right wing Minuteman leader if he had killed anyone that day.
He should have asked him if he’s stopped beating his wife…like Chris Simcox.

Ryan C: “Yeah because unfunded mandates cause deficits as does cutting taxes while engaging in two wars.”
Cutting taxes INCREASED revenues from the highest tax brackets. Congress spent those revenues and much more.
Our unfunded mandates stand at $109 TRILLION. Has Obama improved that situation?
The two wars wouldn’t have happened without Democratic Party support. And we’re still there, aren’t we? In fact, US soldiers are dying at a record pace in Afghanistan. Who’s Commander-in-Chief? Bush?
Record debt.
Record chronic unemployment.
Record poverty.
Record food stamp usage.
Record foreclosures.
Record bankruptcies.
Record bank failures.
All courtesy of Obama’s Hope and Change.
Oh, and thanks for confirming Steve D was Tierra. lol

Ryan C: “Our taxes SHOULD be higher. Too bad right wing selfishness won’t let you guys see the fundamental truth that taxes must go up because you could eliminate all discretionary spending and still be in the hole.”
And taxes will be higher. In the meantime, debt-conscious left wingers can always send a generous check to the Department of Public Debt. You’re doing your part, right Ryan? Doing anything less would be selfish.

“In fact, US soldiers are dying at a record pace in Afghanistan.”
Fighting a war on the ground that we should have done in 2001.
But apparently we needed to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to us.

Ryan C: “Except [cutting taxes increased tax revenues] DIDN’T though its a popular right wing talking point.”
That’s a lie. According to the CBO, the Bush tax cuts shifted the total tax burden farther toward the wealthy so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total. Tax revenues in 2006 were actually $47 billion above the levels projected by the Congressional budget office before the 2003 tax cuts.
“The Laffer curve was DEBUNKED years ago.”
Lie. It was in fact CONFIRMED. See above. Repeating a lie often enough doesn’t make it true. See below.
“But the right wing draws upon the lessons of their right wing ancestors and know a lie repeated often enough will be accepted by the gullible.”
This coming from a believer in meaningless rhetoric like “Hope and Change” and “Yes We Can.” LOL!

“That’s a lie. According to the CBO, the Bush tax cuts shifted the total tax burden farther toward the wealthy so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total. Tax revenues in 2006 were actually $47 billion above the levels projected by the Congressional budget office before the 2003 tax cuts.”
NYT quoting a CBO report
“Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.”
And if you’re gonna quote the Heritage Foundation garbage, at least give them credit.
“Lie. It was in fact CONFIRMED. See above. Repeating a lie often enough doesn’t make it true. See below.”
The Laffer Curve was debunked when Clinton RAISED taxes.
It was debunked again when Bush cut taxes.
Bush did cut capital gains taxes, whether or not that added to the greed and hubris of Wall Street before it came crashing down, we may never know.

“We’re currently killing civilians with drones in Pakistan and Yemen. Did those countries attack us on 9/11?”
While attacking Al Qeuda, the people responsible for 9/11.
I’ve seen hatred of Obama make right wingers say crazy things but defending Al Queda?

While attacking Al Qeuda, the people responsible for 9/11.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 30, 2010 10:05:18 PM
Killing innocent Pakistanis is morally just because Al Qaeda is there? Is that the same as innocent Iraqis killed because Al Qaeda was there?

“Would it have been acceptable if Bush had ordered the drones?”
You have got to be kidding! How many civilians were killed in Iraq while Bush Cheney and Rumsfled muddled their way through it? The difference in scale makes this point ridiculous.

“So killing innocent civilians while fighting the enemy is acceptable collateral damage for you? Would it have been acceptable if Bush had ordered the drones?”
Its not about acceptable or not acceptable.
Its about reality.
War is a serious business and its not meant for playing dress up.

“Would it have been acceptable if Bush had ordered the drones?”
You have got to be kidding! How many civilians were killed in Iraq while Bush Cheney and Rumsfled muddled their way through it? The difference in scale makes this point ridiculous.
Posted by: Skip | Jun 30, 2010 10:16:58 PM
Always fun when someone arrives to use a strawman argument. What does Iraq have to do with Obama using drones to kill innocents in Pakistan? Nothing. Obama is given a pass because of who he is and all of a sudden compassionate liberals are silent on this matter. Where are the protestors chaining themselves to the WH fence to oppose the war in Afghanistan? Nowhere. Liberals are suddenly defending the war and saying war is hell. Unbelievable.
Even if Iraq had never happened, Bush would have been blasted for fighting “the just war” this long.
It’s all hypocritical. Try to deny it.

Did you ever think you would see the day when a right winger was so consumed by hatred of Obama they would lament our war strategy against Al Queda?
—————–
I was convinced they were going to make Ahmadinejad an honorary member of the GOP there for awhile.

I find it particularly heinous to fake concern for civilian casualties of drone attacks while at the very same time trying to undermine support for the ROE designed to limit…civilian casualties.
Posted by: Skip | Jun 30, 2010 10:28:38 PM
Fake concern – because you know me so well?
“particularly heinous” You must be outraged. Can you see straight to type? Maybe you should join the military, if you haven’t served already. You could really help save some civilians.

“I was convinced they were going to make Ahmadinejad an honorary member of the GOP there for awhile.”
Its just bizarre.

“Fake concern – because you know me so well?”
I’ll make a note of it…I don’t expect to see you ever criticize the ROE then, because they’re designed to limit casualties. If we infuriate the locals how are we ever going to succeed?

If we infuriate the locals how are we ever going to succeed?
Posted by: Skip | Jun 30, 2010 10:44:29 PM
So you haven’t read any history on this region, then.

“So you haven’t read any history on this region, then”
Go on…

“like going to the WH and holding up a sign or anything”
Have you?
Posted by: Skip | Jun 30, 2010 10:54:53 PM
I know liberals – I’m sorry, progressives – like to accuse neocons of not doing something they aren’t likely to do anyway… but the questions is has Ryan, the compassionate one, done this. I await Ryan’s response (he probably has to check with Axey first for the appropriate response).

Meanwhile the NYDailyNews reports vice president Joe Biden warning his fellow kamerads, “As things heat up, you can expect House Democrats will be hit with a GOP blitzkrieg of vicious Swift-Boat-style attack ads, Karl Rove-inspired knockout tactics, thinly veiled attempts at character assassination and tea party disruptions.”
. . . uh, also known as ‘free speech’. When do the thin skinned Democrats ever get the point that what they dish out, they should expect to receive in kind? I’m not holding my breath on this revelation, since the Democrats believe that only THEY, the pure as white snow, are the only ones allowed to smear their opponent.
Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it!

I don’t expect to see you ever criticize the ROE then, because they’re designed to limit casualties. If we infuriate the locals how are we ever going to succeed?
Posted by: Skip | Jun 30, 2010 10:44:29 PM
“Another key element Gen. Petraeus must address are rules of engagement (ROE) that critics contend expose NATO soldiers to enemy fire unnecessarily, even as they fail to reduce the number of civilians killed in the conflict. While the exact details of ROE are never made public to avoid exploitation by enemy forces, McCrystal’s orders were restrictive enough that they have been directly blamed for the deaths of American soldiers. Critic have claimed that under the current rules, our troops are not allowed to open fire with their small arms unless they come under enemy fire first.
“It is already well known that allied forces have been hampered with ROE that frustrates their efforts to call for fire support during combat. Rumors have swirled that commanders in the rear have denied or delayed artillery and air support to units under fire out of concern that Taliban and al Qaeda forces were using Afghan civilians as human sheilds.” Washington Examiner

“Funny how in the real world Obama campaigned on doing exactly what he’s doing and won a large victory in the last election, less than 2 years ago.” – jhw539 – Location: la la land
ding-a-ling – ding-a-ling
Hey jhw539, pick up the phone, reality’s calling.
NoBo didn’t campaign on his agenda. If he did he could have accomplished the impossible, losing to a Republican after Bush. He was unspecific on purpose.
All we got was a 5lb &%#t bag filled with 10lbs of Hope and Change and Say No to 4 more years of Bush.

Posted by: MM | Jun 30, 2010 11:29:55 PM
The Washington Examiner?..When are you people going to stop trying to pass off tabloid right-wing sources as unbiased reporting? How many troops would we lose if every time we wanted to hit one of these enemy leaders we had to air-drop a combat team to go after them instead of an air attack?

The Washington Examiner?..When are you people going to stop trying to pass off tabloid right-wing sources as unbiased reporting?
Posted by: Skip | Jun 30, 2010 11:50:12 PM
So (in spite of the typos) the facts are wrong?
Critics do not “contend [the ROE] expose NATO soldiers to enemy fire unnecessarily, even as they fail to reduce the number of civilians killed in the conflict.”?
Critic have not “claimed that under the current rules, our troops are not allowed to open fire with their small arms unless they come under enemy fire first.”?
Allied forces have not been “hampered with ROE that frustrates their efforts to call for fire support during combat.”?

The US never lost a single battle in Vietnam. Blockheads will never understand how it is possible to lose a war in which you win every battle.
Success = withdrawal

“But then again I actually paid attention.” – Ryan Clinquant
Impossible.
If that were so you wouldn’t be supporting everything Bama in these threads.
Your actions give you away.

Where are the protestors chaining themselves to the WH fence to oppose the war in Afghanistan? Nowhere.
————-
You know, I often suspect that conservatives live in bubbles, and this just proves it. Have you ever walked by the White House and checked out who is protesting what? Please… if you are interested in peace, or are simply anti-war, then get informed. There are movements for you.
Your issue is actually with the press, though you don’t seem to know that.
Ever hear of Congressman Alan Grayson? Check out his post at Huff Po called Which Party Is the Peace Party? there are several links in the article.
The misinformation in your post is annoying.

“Spot on. ” – ProMa
Well time to get some spot remover.
I’ve read in published print media that Obama comes in first place for the worst president ever displacing Jimmy Carter.

I support the effort in Afghanistan. I have always supported that effort.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 30, 2010 11:29:30 PM
Then you have always supported a war that was mis-managed after the initial banishment of the Taliban and has resulted in the deaths of many soldiers and innocent citizen. But hey if your cool with that…
No one will EVER win in Afghanistan. We do not understand the country or the people who live there and have lived there for thousands of years. What worked in Iraq will never work in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Noz | Jul 1, 2010 8:50:17 PM
Hmmm.. I find a a poll of 238 presidential scholars more interesting than anonymous published print media mentioned offhand by hyperpartisans, but, cough, maybe that’s just me.
If anyone else wants to read the poll, check out SIENA RESEARCH INSTITUTE, American Presidents: Greatest and Worst,
Siena’s 5th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2010 (they conduct the poll every 8 years, I think)

Since this post refers to Boehner, and he was all over the news today… what do you make of him not refuting Joe Scarborough’s claim that every Republican he knows says Boehner is more interesting in hitting the DC bars every night — by 5 or 6– than doing his job.
Maybe he was drunk when he yelled on the House floor, or made his bad ant analogy, or made his big stand about paying an extra few bucks for his tanning bed habit. lol. (Tanned congressman look better in bar lighting?) And maybe that’s why he always gets the little things wrong (like the deepwater drilling moratorium applying to, um, deepwater drilling…)
See also Gail Collins, The Most Unhappy Fellow

See ,”D.C. antiwar march draws thousands on seventh-anniversary of Iraq invasion”
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 1:43:11 AM
Which has what to do with protesting the war in Afghanistan?
Your not there yet…

“I am not interested in other protests. I speak strictly of war protests,”
There’s this thing called google.
You may want to search war protests.
Also Wikipedia has some info.

Your not there yet…
Posted by: MM | Jul 2, 2010 8:58:04 AM
Actually, you’re wrong. Read the article I mentioned or google (or see Wikipedia) regarding either Protests against the War in Afghanistan or March 20, 2010 anti-war protest—
Pay attention to the part that says it was a big anti-war protest the wars in Iraq AND Afghanistan.
Also see Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) which helped organize the event, and pay attention to the post under the heading : “March 20, 2010
Thousands Take to the Streets to Demand:
U.S. Out of Afghanistan and Iraq Now!”

Bush showed incredible idiocy botching Afghanistan to focus his attention on iraq.
Thankfully Obama is correcting that.
Its so funny to watch you wail for the Taliban and Al Qeuda.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jul 2, 2010 3:02:01 PM
Bush managed to give Iraq a chance but the complete history on that has not been written. He did not realize the mess that is Afghanistan but I disagree that without Iraq anything in Afghanistan would have changed. And I disagree that Obama is changing anything except for the worse.
The history of Afghanistan is clear. The future also. If you can debate otherwise, I welcome your opinion.

The history of Afghanistan is clear. The future also. …
Posted by: MM | Jul 2, 2010 9:45:25 PM
So are you in agreement with Michael Steele, then, in the video footage that emerged, and if so, what do you think of the walk backs (lol, classic!) and the calls for his resignation?