In a thoughtful interview with the always-impartial NY Times, Barack Obama announced that he expects Republicans to be far more willing to work with him following the midterm elections and, by implication, that he still enjoys pot, booze, and a little blow when he can afford it.
According to the alleged president's alleged reasoning, there are two possible scenarios which would mean that Republicans would work with him after mopping the floor with lesser Democrats around the country.
In the first scenario, the Republicans will feel a sense of shame if their election returns "didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them.” On a side note to the president, we'll point out that people can't be sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs, although this does help explain the president's "we promise to leave right after the surge" war strategy.
In the president's second scenario, the Republicans will do "reasonably well (at the polls), in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”
Apparently Obama is missing the third and most likely scenario: that from Day One, newly elected Republicans will have their hands full repealing everything that Obama has done to this country for two years.
Still, you have to give the president credit for his bizarre optimism. Or perhaps give credit to whoever is supplying his high quality mood enhancers.
-
18 comments:
Good Lord, what a steaming heap of ego!
What if the best case happens, and we wind up w/ 'veto proof' majorities? Get people in there who will start taking things APART!!!!
Sorry, getting carried away.
At least, there "should" be enough Rs in the house to bounce funding for a whole lotta crap...
When Alexis deToqueville wrote:
The President, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing great mischief within the state. he clearly did not foresee this administration - actually, nor others from the resource meddling of Teddy Roosevelt all the way up until now. The damage has been cumulative, and can be assigned to each of the presidents in turn due to a willing or complacent Congress and electorate.
In that same paragraph, he also wrote Congress may decide amiss without destroying the Union, because the electoral body may cause it to retract its decision by changing its members. Which is where we are actively going today; however, look what it took to get us, the electorate, here! The near destruction of our Union. Had 0bama been as measured as most of his predecessors were in achieving their goals; had he ginned up better "crises" under which cover to operate, who knows if we would have seen what we're seeing now? Finally, deToqueville wraps up with But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent men or bad citizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war. This, my friends, is the greater danger: those on the Supreme Court. It's high time the impeachment process for Supreme Court judges be investigated. I know of at least two sitting judges who would be at risk...
Stilton:
We tend to throw the word "crazy" around with reckless abandon, thus degrading it's meaning in much the same way "racist" has been overused and diminished to near insignificance. In Obama's case, the term may be clinically accurate and should be used judiciously, i.e. "he's one crazy f***er!".
He's like the school bully that keeps shouting and stomping and trying to rule things as one by one, everyone else takes their ball and goes home.
Emmentaler- Good points! The sheeple are finally rebelling largely because Obama took a "too much, too fast" approach. Although ironically, he's also taking heat from the far left because he didn't push socialism enough. We assume that they were hoping for the Evil Rich to be taken in ox carts to guillotines.
By the way, we don't think deToqueville's analysis of the checks and balances that exist between the three branches of government took unilaterally-appointed "Czars" into account. But if he had, he would have found an eloquent way to say "well that screws up everything!"
Lord, I hope that the Republicans who win this time around are as genuine as I hope, but I'm not holding my breath.
Erik...no kidding...heaven forbid we get a bunch of John McCains in there wanting to reach across the aisle and let Obama do more destruction.
Unfortunately, Mr Obama is in for a disappointment on many levels. His other big problem (besides the one you cite) is that he defines "work[ing] with me in a serious way" as "wiling to give me what i want." When the newly-elected Congress refuses to do that, he will complain that they're a bunch of do-nothings.
Let him complain all he wants ... right up until the House of Representatives serves up Articles of Impeachemnt for his daily news brief ... and takes away Michelle's unlimited travel vouchers!
We can only pray, doc!
Obamas such a weirdo! After watching and listening to Chile's prez yesterday, kinda made me homesick for the ol America that used to be...when a compassionate man was at the helm, who did not hesitate to invoke God's name into a situation...who did all he could to prevent catastrophe to his fellow citizens!
If he were in charge when the BP thing happened, I am sure he would have done things very differently than the present regime did!
What a miracle we got to witness as those miners were brought from the depths of the earth! And it was an American drill bit that chewed through the rock!!!
Pryorguy - re: your last sentence.
American exceptionalism is appreciated all around the world...buy not by our own president.
buy = but
(damn my fat fingers)
I wish just ONCE someone prepared could get into one of Spud's townhalls. For example, the other day he told some lady, "there's nothing in the law that says you can't keep your current plan. I wish I knew what you are upset about because then I could make you feel better." Well there's something in the laws of MATHEMATICS that says the insurance companies can't offer their old plans and stay in business more than a year or two. The demands for the insurance companies, insure prior conditions and no limetime limits etc SOUND nice, but so did the law that said drinking water could contain "no detectable level of any poison or carcinogen". Only problem: No drop of water on earth was legal and nobody knew any process to produce one. Even the ultra pure water used in making computer chips wasn't legal to sell as tap water. DUH!
"newly elected Republicans will have their hands full repealing everything that Obama has done to this country for two years."
More likely, if history is any guide, they will throw big BBQ parties to celebrate their victory, make bombastic speeches, and then recoil from the actual work involved in actually repealing anything.
Remember the Contract with America? The took votes on about half of it, and then actually execute none of it.
As the old joke goes, if the Democrats proposed burning down the Library of Congress, the Republicans would rise to insist that the arson be committed a fiscally-responsible manner, in phases, over a three year period.
"we don't think deToqueville's analysis of the checks and balances that exist between the three branches of government took unilaterally-appointed "Czars" into account."
deTocqueville was a victim of the grade-school fairy tale in which the government is three rival branches acting in political tension to serve a sovereign citizenry. Our rulers long ago learned that it is much more financially rewarding to coordinate a self-perpetuating machine in which the theoretically rival branches actually cooperate to arrange for the parasitical political class to rule and loot the productive class.
Chumgrinder- You have a very cynical attitude, which just happens to be well-documented by observable history...and is pretty much identical to our attitude.
We know that the Democrats are the "bad guys" at this point, but the Republicans have also acted like "bad guys" almost every chance they got. Personally, we think this is the GOP's last chance to show that they "get it" and will really do things differently. Failing that, it will be time to reconsider options like third parties, torches, and pitchforks.
Moronpolitics wrote "Well there's something in the laws of MATHEMATICS that says the insurance companies can't offer their old plans and stay in business more than a year or two. " That IS the plan; dems have their eye-on-the-prize; once the insurance cos. are out of the way; the libs will be able to get what they really want....a single-payer-system. Arghh..Nov 2nd can't get here soon enough!
Post a Comment