Obama speech: lots of words, no solutions

posted at 8:45 am on July 26, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

For the fifth time in three weeks, Barack Obama seized the bully pulpit in the debt-ceiling debate, this time using a prime-time speech instead of a press conference to do so.  And for the fifth time in three weeks, Obama literally did nothing with it except to utter the same platitudes and clichés as he did on the previous four occasions.  Obama offered no solutions, no specifics for a solution, and spent 15 minutes avoiding both.

And at least one media outlet noticed:

President Barack Obama elbowed his way back into the debt ceiling debate Monday night, three days after Republicans shoved him out, but he offered no hint of a solution to the escalating political and financial crisis.

Politico also got the impression that Obama was delivering a campaign speech rather than a solution to a crisis that Obama himself has hyped considerably:

Beyond the I’m-still-here theme of the speech, Obama sought to strike the larger themes of his 2012 campaign, aimed at independent voters who have only now begun tuning into the debt debate: the need for compromise, his disgust with partisan Washington and his determination to make the rich pay their fair share. If his campaign-style rhetoric was persuasive, it came at an awkward time, during the final days when a reasonable debt ceiling compromise can still be struck.

Awkward indeed.  Obama repeatedly blasted Republicans for not agreeing with his approach while providing no plan at all, and modeled the need for compromise with … a campaign speech.  Anyone listening to Obama’s fifth foray in front of the cameras this month — by far the most intense public-relations campaign Obama has conducted in more than a year — could be forgiven for wondering why the President didn’t spend at least some of that time actually developing and presenting his own plan.

The simple answer: Obama doesn’t want the responsibility for raising the debt ceiling, cutting spending, and/or raising taxes.  This is what passes for leadership in the era of Hope and Change — voting present.

Obama has worked hard to make himself irrelevant over the last few weeks, and he’s about to get his wish.  Harry Reid and John Boehner are now working on competing proposals for a solution to the debt crisis, which is what Republicans wanted all along.  As soon as something passes in the Senate, the House can pass a reworked version of the bill and send the issue into conference committee.  This is normal legislative procedure, abandoned by Reid with the Senate’s refusal to act over the last few months.  A conference committee will produce a bill that will get up-or-down votes in both chambers.

Assuming that process works — and there is no reason to believe it won’t, having been used for 222 years — Obama will find a bill on his desk, likely one with cuts and no new revenues and one that may or may not take the US past the next election.  Does he dare veto it?  Oddly, as National Journal’s Major Garrett discovered, “veto” was one word that didn’t appear in Obama’s rhetorical blizzard.   Reid and Boehner will finally get Obama out of the legislative process, a change that will not only highlight his status as the major obstacle to making a deal but also his near-total irrelevance to an eventual solution.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Ever the rabble rouser. Get your torches and pitchforks! Storm the castle! They went thataway!

This country is in too much agony to fall for this man’s lies anymore. The emperor has no clothes.

xrayiiis on July 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM

I don’t know if The Won claimed small business experience, it wouldn’t surprise me. But he did claim that running his campaign give him executive experience, you have to admit that is so very very weak.

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I think we’re allowed to criticize a president , with which we disagree on. Not the man, his policies.

I don’t go to Canadian political sites and bash your people or country. SO why do you do this here? I’m curious.

As for partisan hackery…this IS A CONSERVATIVE site. There are liberal sites out there, and plenty of them. I partake with none of them. Not one. They aren’t interested in my opinion, and while I’m always open to reading, and listening, I rarely agree.

I’m all for constructive criticism, but you go beyond that, with outright name calling, and attacks. I don’t get it! Why?

capejasmine on July 26, 2011 at 10:12 AM
———
There is barely a shred of a thread of a kernel of objectivity here. That is my point. If this site was even 80-20 in agreement with the right as opposed to the 98-2 it currently is, it would be an incredible place that would actually make a difference. Same goes for DailyKos – 98-2 hackery in the other direction.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I don’t know if The Won claimed small business experience, it wouldn’t surprise me. But he did claim that running his campaign give him executive experience, you have to admit that is so very very weak.

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2011 at 10:21 AM
—–
Yep. Weak sauce.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:23 AM

I don’t go to Canadian political sites and bash your people or country. SO why do you do this here? I’m curious…

capejasmine on July 26, 2011 at 10:12 AM

That’s because the rights of free speech have been so suppressed in the PRC that a website like HA could not exist there. Every day we post comments here that would have you dragged into a court in Canada.

Canadians have so f’d up civil rights in their country that they have nowhere to go but the USA.

slickwillie2001 on July 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM

I never thought I would see a worse president than Carter in my lifetime. 0bama is Jimmuh on steroids. Everywhere Carter failed Scooter has produced EPIC FAIL.

Dominion on July 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM

I don’t go to Canadian political sites and bash your people or country. SO why do you do this here? I’m curious…

capejasmine on July 26, 2011 at 10:12 AM

That’s because the rights of free speech have been so suppressed in the PRC that a website like HA could not exist there. Every day we post comments here that would have you dragged into a court in Canada.

Canadians have so f’d up civil rights in their country that they have nowhere to go but the USA.

slickwillie2001 on July 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM
——
So true!

I have to get all my posts approved by my MP, so it’s really annoying.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Obama never claimed to have small business experience.

It’s hilarious how you simply refuse to acknowledge that he was a college professor for 12 years.

Keep up the hackery.

And have a really swell day.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Some people call Obama a professor but the actual official title given to him by the University of Chicago Law School was “Lecturer” and then later “Senior Lecturer”.

As for his 12 years of experience, he taught only PART TIME.

GrannySunni on July 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Re: Obama speech and Obama think

A few days ago, it was ‘Job-Killing Tax Cuts’, yesterday he clarified to be those job-killing Bush tax cuts that is Un-funded and which he didn’t need (therefore the rest of us don’t, either).

The way he views things, all we’ve earned and possessed is just the money pot gubmint and politicians haven’t had a chance to steal yet.

Sir Napsalot on July 26, 2011 at 10:38 AM

I am reminded of something Obama did yet again in his speech — declaring that he “told congressional leaders to” do this or that. Last week he was telling Boehner and Reid to come to the White House “at 11am” like he is a fu**ing Queen or something.

This seems to piss people off, and has no basis in our constitution. They don’t work for him.

And I suspect that this is Obama attempting to make up for his greatest weaknesses* by trying to declare that he is important (*Greatest Weaknesses: knows nothing, has done nothing, is not respected by anyone involved, doesn’t like to work, lacks any creativity).

Jaibones on July 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I hear you, but that’s what this site is for. The conservative voice. Kos is for voicing liberal opinions. I’m sure there are more moderate sites out there. If that’s what I were interested in, that’s where I’d go.

That being said…and while I don’t like the negatives all the time, I choose not to always comment on every thread, or every comment. If you’re a moderate, that’s fine…and if you disapprove of how people feel here…that’s fine too. But this is, as I understand, first and foremost, a conservative site. As for moderate…I’ve seen a lot of comments to that effect. It’s all in how you interpret someone.

The bottom line right now is…people are worried, and scared for their country, and where it’s going. We here, do not want socialism. We’re all about helping the less fortunate up, but not out. Social programs should be used to help someone out of dire situations. They should never be used to help keep them there, and wanting more..all for political votes. That is the difference between conservatives, and liberals.

There is a better way to do things, rather than robbing everyone into poverty.

capejasmine on July 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM

It must indeed have been trying for the quota “professor’s” overcharged students not to ask if Zero had ever cracked the textbook in his life.

viking01 on July 26, 2011 at 10:44 AM

The whiny bloodshed you’re going through now is the painful but awesome process that happens when the people say f this we’ve had enough of government waste/bloat and (at least on the dem side) a tax system that benefits the rich beyond all understanding.

It’s too bad you don’t understand the fact that “the rich” contribute close to 40% of the federal tax revenues collected, while the bottom 50% pays virtually nothing. Projecting class warfare really lowers your credibility along with any objective criticism that might have been considered. You seem to care about neither Dave, while your cynicisms and solipsism’s have flourished over the years. Stay well our comrade friend.

Rovin on July 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Some people call Obama a professor but the actual official title given to him by the University of Chicago Law School was “Lecturer” and then later “Senior Lecturer”.

As for his 12 years of experience, he taught only PART TIME.

GrannySunni on July 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM
——
Fair enough. But still a prof.

From the school itself:
“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Han: We are all ready to win, just as we are born knowing only life. It is defeat that you must learn to prepare for.
Williams: I don’t waste my time with it. When it comes, I won’t even notice.
Han: Oh? How so?
Williams: I’ll be too busy looking gooood.

- Enter The Dragon

Socratease on July 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Dave, if we had your system of government, Barack Obama’s government would have fallen by now. Last year’s elections would have been a massacre for Democrats in the Senate as well as the House. You do realize that, don’t you? He got his @ss handed to him in the 2010 elections and yet he is STILL calling for tax increases and saying the exact same class-warfare stuff he has been saying his entire career. He is a child of 1960s radicals and is still trying to run the Alinsky playbook. We’re on to him, and he isn’t going to get away with it.

rockmom on July 26, 2011 at 11:00 AM

It’s too bad you don’t understand the fact that “the rich” contribute close to 40% of the federal tax revenues collected, while the bottom 50% pays virtually nothing. Projecting class warfare really lowers your credibility along with any objective criticism that might have been considered. You seem to care about neither Dave, while your cynicisms and solipsism’s have flourished over the years. Stay well our comrade friend.

Rovin on July 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM
———

That so many millions earn so little that there is barely a pittance of income tax worth collecting from them speaks volumes about your society.

I am merely suggesting that the rich go back to paying the rates they paid before the Bush tax cuts. Somehow that is a sacred cow or something. You’re not one of those people who thinks all rich people are out there with bags of money looking to help people start up businesses are you? No doubt they invest their money, but they invest it where they think they can make money – and that ain’t in small business or new business – it’s in wherever the f their brokers tell them to. Rich-people-create-the-jobs is the biggest bullsh*t going.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:01 AM

I never engage in personal attacks but I despise Obama the rotten tooth president. Not my president.

Whoops!!

Sherman1864 on July 26, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Dave, if we had your system of government, Barack Obama’s government would have fallen by now. Last year’s elections would have been a massacre for Democrats in the Senate as well as the House. You do realize that, don’t you? He got his @ss handed to him in the 2010 elections and yet he is STILL calling for tax increases and saying the exact same class-warfare stuff he has been saying his entire career. He is a child of 1960s radicals and is still trying to run the Alinsky playbook. We’re on to him, and he isn’t going to get away with it.

rockmom on July 26, 2011 at 11:00 AM
———-
1
Both sides have to compromise.
I give the Dems a D+ and the Republicans a D- for their efforts.

2
Obama is hardly a radical. He’s in Wall Street’s pocket. Give your head a shake.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you not disappointed at the super genius that is supposed to be Obama didn’t utter any other words aside from tired cliches and class warfare rhetoric?

One would think that with a soaring intellect that is allegedly possessed by the man, that he could exceed everyone’s expectations.

Do you have any insights into why this is the case?

NMRN123 on July 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Where do we stand on this debt ceiling? I’m not watching the news at all on this – fully expecting a GOP sellout on the entire issue.

We need to NOT raise the debt ceiling – force Obama to MAKE THE DECISIONS about who gets paid. Sure – the GOP will be blamed for the debt ceiling crisis (FOR ABOUT THREE DAYS) … but after that – the REAL story is going to be about WHO Obama selected to give money to – and who he selected to leave out in the cold with an empty wallet. There’s NO WAY FOR HIM TO WIN on that. After a few weeks – Dims would be working to primary his ass.

I’m serious – no has really thought about the fact that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling – then Obama has to perform – AS A CHIEF EXECUTIVE. No campaign speech is going to help him – some people aren’t going to get their money and they are going to be pissed about it.

HondaV65 on July 26, 2011 at 11:08 AM

In Texas we have an expression for people like Zero:All hat & no cattle.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 26, 2011 at 11:09 AM

It’s hilarious how you simply refuse to acknowledge that he was a college professor for 12 years.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM

I don’t agree with you on much, Dave, but I never really viewed you as particularly stupid. But this claim is just stupid, and only a stupid person would think this is true.

You don’t really … right? You’re just bluffing?

In case we caught you at a weak moment and you just blurted out a stupid thing (it happens to all of us), let me state for the record:

Obama is not now and never has been a “professor” of anything. He has never been a full time teacher, at any level. He has never been a functioning attorney. He has never published a legal opinion.

Obama was employed by the University of Chicago law school as a part-time lecturer in constitutional law. (It is sad that the university feels Obama was qualified to teach this class and short-changed their students by providing as their instructor a man who graduated from Harvard Law with high honors, but has never studied the law beyond Harvard, never subjected himself to peer or public review on his legal opinions, never clerked for a judge, did not pursue a career in law, and had no interest in becoming a professor.)

The university published a political statement on his part-time career, declaring that although he was a part-time lecturer, he was treated as a professor. The statement is absurd on its face … ask any professor the difference between the two and you’ll get an earful. For more insight into his celebrity job at U of C, see any of the various interviews of Richard Epstein, Professor of Law Emeritus at Chicago, and a professor at NYU (and Cato and Hoover).

Jaibones on July 26, 2011 at 11:10 AM

I think Barry has awakened to the fact that he’s become a Lame Duck.

GarandFan on July 26, 2011 at 11:11 AM

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan.

OK, this was perhaps the part that most offended me, as one who distinctly remembered the context in which Reagan spoke those words. Ronnie was arguing for his big tax reform bill in 1981 when he said that; arguing for a bill that drastically reduced the top income tax rates from a stratospheric 70%! He was specifically arguing for the closing of loopholes in the tax code, “tax shelters”, that had developed over the years as forms of relief from the extortion-like upper bracket rates, as part of the rate reduction compromise; effectively telling high-income Americans that they couldn’t have their cake and eat it too-if rates were going down then the loopholes were going to have to be closed as well…

For O!-blah-blah to both try and cast himself somehow as a 21st century permutation of Reagan and at the same time co-opt Reagan’s argument, used then as part of a larger discussion of tax cuts, to now support class-warfare-like tax increases on the high-earners is a new height in lows.

It’s more than I can take. It’s a Popeye moment; I’ve had all I can stands, and I can’t stands no more!

I implore everyone to write/call their congressional delegations and let them know that you in no way support the Obama/Reid plan for increasing the debt ceiling. Do it before the progressive electronic brownshirts “freep” the switchboards and e-mail boxes.

RocketmanBob on July 26, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Jaibones on July 26, 2011 at 11:10 AM
——
You’re crankier than I am.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Both sides have to compromise.
I give the Dems a D+ and the Republicans a D- for their efforts.

2
Obama is hardly a radical. He’s in Wall Street’s pocket. Give your head a shake.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Geeze, imagine that. A marxist gives democrats a higher grade than republicans and claims that Obama is not a radical and is in the pocket of Wall Street.

What an idiot. Your opinion is about as important as Canada is in world affairs – that is to say, it isn’t.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 11:21 AM

2
Obama is hardly a radical. He’s in Wall Street’s pocket. Give your head a shake.
Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Obama has basically been indoctrinated into the assumptions of the radical left, though he does not exibit a radical personality type. I really don’t know what you mean by being “in Wall Street’s pocket”, but he appears to be easily manipulated by anyone he takes as a ally. As long as you are his friend, he believes you when you say something is for the public good.

Count to 10 on July 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM

You’re crankier than I am.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM

When Dave gets busted, he does what he does best: he drops a turd.

Kind of reminds me of President Obama.

Really Right on July 26, 2011 at 11:25 AM

And, I love how leftists come on here and complain that our being against raising taxes is a “silly sacred cow” and “ideological blindness.”

Ummm, democrats call for higher taxes every year, for every issue, no matter what. How is the idea of raising taxes not a liberal sacred cow created by ideological blindness?

If your answer to every problem is always the same thing, I’m pretty sure it is a purely ideological response.

Moreover, raising taxes won’t solve anything. Teh problem is spending. Raising taxes may help bring the current deficit down some, but it won’t solve the deficit nor will it do anything about the debt.

So, why not do things to deal with the actual problem – spending cuts, significant entitlement reform? And then, in a couple of years when we see that congress is serious about reforming spending, if it is deemed necessary to raise taxes in order to pay down debt (and only for that purpose), we can have that discussion. That would be responsible and adult thing to do.

Instead, the geniuses on the left oppose any kind of entitlement reform that will actually address the problem and instead want the purely ideological approach of raising taxes in order to appear to be addressing the issue but without actually acheiving anything.

Yes, our aversion to higher taxes is “ideologocial” in that our philosophy is for small gov’t and low taxes and we believe (correctly) that the problem we need to address is spending. At least our ideological stance is based on reality and points toward an actual solution to the problem.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Geeze, imagine that. A marxist gives democrats a higher grade than republicans and claims that Obama is not a radical and is in the pocket of Wall Street.

What an idiot. Your opinion is about as important as Canada is in world affairs – that is to say, it isn’t.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 11:21 AM
——–
A higher sh*tty grade is still sh*tty.
“marxist” – ha ha ha
Canada bashing – ha ha ha
Have a swell day.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:01 AM

You are correct in so much as it isn’t the already rich that create jobs, but those with the highest income. The more we ease the marginal tax rates on those with high incomes, the less wealth they attempt to generate. However, deductions and credits are really just spending, and should be cut as such.
Further, we do ourselves no favors by not taxing the poor at the same rate we tax the rich. Not only do those taxes not significantly effect the productivity of the poor, but the fact that they pay no taxes means that they have no appreciation for the effect those taxes have on others.

Count to 10 on July 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM

(Stamping feet): “Why will you not start hating the upper class?

“Corporate jets…CORPORATE JETS!!!!!”

MarkT on July 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Can someone tell me how autocorrect decided to change “raise” into “ease”? That completely ruined what I wrote.

Count to 10 on July 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Both sides have to compromise.
I give the Dems a D+
Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Dave you can’t even give the Dems a grade, at best you can give them an incomplete.

How can you grade someone who has never handed in their homework or completed an exam?

800+ days since the Senate Dems have last submitted a budget.

CBO STILL can’t score Bambi’s speeches, press conferences, and news leaks. He talks a lot, but has submitted NOTHING in writing. No specifics, only generalties.

Find yourself another thread DR, you’re embarrassing yourself …

PackerBronco on July 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM

This issue is a lot like the illegal immigration issue for me.

On the immigration issue, I would have no problem doing something to provide a path to a legal status for illegals that have been here a long time, have not been on entitlements, have an employment history, and have no criminal record – BUT only after we have actually enforced/secured the border for a number of years and enforced immigration laws as to employers for a number of years. This is b/c I have absolutely no faith in congress (either party) in doing it in reverse order. Promises of future enforcement for current “amnesty” would never happen.

That is teh same way I feel about the debt ceiling / tax issue. I don’t trust congress – either party – to actaully cut spending in the future for tax increases now. I need to see some real spending reductions and entitlemetn reform before I would agree to any tax increases to deal with the debt. If we agreed to a tax now / cut later deal – we would get the taxes but never see the cuts.

I know, some would say – but they are proposing doing both at teh same time. B.S.! They are proposing taxes now and 10 years of “cuts”. Those cuts for years 2 – 9 would never happen. Hell, even this year’s alleged cuts would probably not happen. I’m not absolutely and forever against the idea of some tax increases to pay down debt – if the money really went to that purpose and not to increased (or even current levels) of spending. But I have to see a number of years of serious pending cuts and entitlement reform first.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Mr. Rywall

You still can’t ignore that Obama had the White House, The House and a filibuster proof Senate for two whole years. What did he do with it? I think the results speak for themselves. Unlimited power and all he did was create slush funds for his cronies. Yeah, he’s a genius.

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM

A higher sh*tty grade is still sh*tty.
“marxist” – ha ha ha
Canada bashing – ha ha ha
Have a swell day.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Ha ha. What do you call your comments about America here? You seem awfully concerned with a country that is not your own? Why is that? Because we are less important than Canida? No. Because our importance dwarfs Canada. As does England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, and many other nations. Or, do you claim that Candada is somehow important on the international stage?

So why are you here? when was the last time americans bothered going to Canadian political websites to voice opinions about canadian politics? Yet you are hear all the time. Sorry if the truth hurts your fragile national pride.

And, your views are pretty marxist. Havnig read them over time, you do not deviate from the marxist script very often. Rich = evil/bad; socialism = good; gov’t control of industry, etc = good.

You may not believe you are marxist, but your opinions are pertty in line with marxist theory. You probably refer to yourself as “progressive”. I’ll bet you even claim “independent” or “liberterian” at times. Marxists tend to want to hide their true beliefs and nature. Thus, american liberals are always changing their label and how they define things. Why, “wealth” = making $200,000 / a year now to you guys.

Anyway, not too impressed with your comments – pretty cliched liberal stuff. I can tell you what you are going to say before you say it.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Good lord, I misspelled Canada three different ways in one comment. I suppose it fits into my theme of Canada not being important, but, unfortunately, was not intentional.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 11:44 AM

It’s hilarious how you simply refuse to acknowledge that he was a college professor for 12 years.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM

And yet this “college professor” cannot apply the alleged genius that the press assured us he had to solving the intractable debt conundrum.

Most would agree with the assessment that you are most assuredly a Proud Obama Supporter.

Wouldn’t you agree with that assessment?

NMRN123 on July 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Ed and Politico got it right. This speech was nothing more than a thinly disguised campaign speech by Failbama Nero.

Even Chrissy Tingles got that and he remarked afterwards that it was a mistake. If tingles is cringing, Failbama really screwed up.

dogsoldier on July 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM

That so many millions earn so little that there is barely a pittance of income tax worth collecting from them speaks volumes about your society.

That somehow people earned so little is definitely OTHERS’ fault.

There is no arguing with this premise, folks, give up.

Sir Napsalot on July 26, 2011 at 11:57 AM

You’re crankier than I am.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Not always.

Jaibones on July 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM

And my grammar’s usually passable.

Jaibones on July 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Jackalope…!

Seven Percent Solution on July 26, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Han: We are all ready to win, just as we are born knowing only life. It is defeat that you must learn to prepare for.
Williams: I don’t waste my time with it. When it comes, I won’t even notice.
Han: Oh? How so?
Williams: I’ll be too busy looking gooood.

- Enter The Dragon

Socratease on July 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM

+7%…!

Seven Percent Solution on July 26, 2011 at 12:16 PM

He looks terrible. Since he’s irrelevant at this point, I’d advise him to go on to Martha’s Vineyard. If Congress can hammer out an agreement, they can send it to him by courier for his signature. In fact, why doesn’t he just stay on the Vineyard for the duration.

SukieTawdry on July 26, 2011 at 12:54 PM

There is barely a shred of a thread of a kernel of objectivity here. That is my point. If this site was even 80-20 in agreement with the right as opposed to the 98-2 it currently is, it would be an incredible place that would actually make a difference. Same goes for DailyKos – 98-2 hackery in the other direction. Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM

And the US Army should be 50% Americans, 50% Taliban. Just to make it fair.

Akzed on July 26, 2011 at 1:06 PM

As for his 12 years of experience, he taught only PART TIME.

GrannySunni on July 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM
——
Fair enough. But still a prof.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM

LOL, who cares?

BTW, O’bama also “worked” for 4 years as a “lawyer” at a Democrat law firm in Chicago, where in 4 years of “fulltime employment” in reality he “worked” an average of 18 hours a week.

In his entire adult life, he’s never held a real job longer than 3 or so years.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Ever the rabble rouser. Get your torches and pitchforks! Storm the castle! They went thataway!

This country is in too much agony to fall for this man’s lies anymore. The emperor has no clothes.

xrayiiis on July 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM

I agree. He really showed his butt last night, and ai think it will cost him.

Obama spoke to those that vote for a living, and Boener spoke to those that work for a living. I thought the contrast was stark. I think Obama went a little to far and exposed his vision. Keep them stupid, keep them voting, and keep them rationalizing contempt for the rich Republican whities.

saiga on July 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Last night, Professor Mom Jeans gave us a review of this term’s lectures. The Final Exam will be multiple false choice and fill-in-the-blank check questions. You have one week to complete this exam.

You may begin.

A Balrog of Morgoth on July 26, 2011 at 1:41 PM

The flagrant vote farming operation the Dems are building is criminal. It is a straight up power grab using taxpayers money instead of winning minds through constructive ideas.

The dem constituency is lacking in many ways, so they tend to be far more gullable than those that heve worked their way up into a better live.

The problem is, the dems never talk about the end game. Pay more people to be useless and stupid, and you get more useless and stupid people. Follow that bouncing ball, and it leads to nothing but big trouble for the US.

Any rational person can find their way to that conclusion.

saiga on July 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM

MELT THE PHONES….

I called all three Congressmen today and one of them said they are getting “a lot” of calls opposing the Boehner plan/sham.

Make the difference.

PappyD61 on July 26, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Rich-people-create-the-jobs is the biggest bullsh*t going.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Oh my holy God, this moron actually thinks POOR PEOPLE CREATE JOBS!!!

I’ve often found myself being interviewed by welfare queens when looking for engineering work.

Canada is embarassed that drywall is anywhere within her grand borders.

runawayyyy on July 26, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Oh my holy God, this moron actually thinks POOR PEOPLE CREATE JOBS!!!

I’ve often found myself being interviewed by welfare queens when looking for engineering work.

Canada is embarassed that drywall is anywhere within her grand borders.

runawayyyy on July 26, 2011 at 3:16 PM
——-
Come on – tell us who you got to type in engineering for you.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 3:24 PM

There is barely a shred of a thread of a kernel of objectivity here. That is my point. If this site was even 80-20 in agreement with the right as opposed to the 98-2 it currently is, it would be an incredible place that would actually make a difference. Same goes for DailyKos – 98-2 hackery in the other direction. Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Well, define “objectivity”. It appears to mean “things Dave Rywall agrees with” in your lexicon. And, I’m shocked! Shocked! that a conservative blog agrees with conservatives. I’m telling you, the world must be coming to an end.

Your attempt to be a concern troll is unconvincing. It is hard to pretend to be an “objective”, “independent” thinker when all you do is spout liberal talking points. Nice touch though, throwing DKos under the bus, as if you don’t go there and agree with everything posted. the old “a pox on both their houses, all us reasonable people understand that you must raise taxes!” Too funny. “If only this site espoused more liberal views, it could really ‘make a difference’”. Wow. We’ll get right on that.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Come on – tell us who you got to type in engineering for you.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Exactly. Everyone knows that it is the government that creates jobs. Not those evil people with money.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Come on – tell us who you got to type in engineering for you.

Dave Rywall on July 26, 2011 at 3:24 PM

No, seriously, you actually think poor people create jobs. Have you ever had a job? Did a poor person create it? Really???

Come on – tell us who you got to type in your name for you….moron.

runawayyyy on July 26, 2011 at 3:32 PM

You can see how Obama is truly post-racial in his outlook. Here are the courses taught by the self-proclaimed constitutional law expert Sr. Lecturer Obama:

CURRENT ISSUES IN RACISM & THE LAW. 54302.

This seminar examines current problems in American race relations and the role the law has played in structuring the race debate. How have past and present legal approaches to racism fared? Has the continued emphasis on statutory solutions to racism impeded the development of potentially richer political, economic, and cultural approaches, and if so, can minorities afford to shift their emphasis given the continued prevalence of racism in society? Can, and should, the existing concepts of American jurisprudence provide racial minorities more than formal equality through the courts? Students prepare papers that evaluate how the legal system has dealt with particular incidents of racism and that discuss the comparative merits of litigation, legislation and market solutions to problems of institutional racism in American society. This seminar may be taken for fulfillment of the Substantial Writing Requirement. The student’s grade is based on a 15 page paper, group presentation and class participation. Autumn (3) Mr. Obama.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW III: EQUAL PROTECTION AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. 40301.

This course considers the history, theory, and contemporary law of the post-Civil War Amendments to the Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The central subjects are: the constitutional law governing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and other characteristics; the recognition of individual rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; and the constitutional distinction between state and private action. Throughout, students consider certain foundational questions, including the role of courts in a democracy, and the question of how the Constitution should be interpreted. The student’s grade in Mr. Obama’s section is based on a take home examination. The student’s grade in Mr. Strauss’ section is based on a proctored final examination. Autumn (3) Mr. Obama, Winter (3) Mr. Strauss.

VOTING RIGHTS & THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. 42001.

This course examines the history of voting rights law in the United States, as well as the broader issues surrounding various systems of representative democracy: How should the courts balance the demands of majority rule with the desire to protect minority voices? Does the Voting Rights Act, as amended, promote minority voices, or simply segregate them from the larger political discourse? Are there alternative models, such as cumulative voting, that would better serve majority and minority alike? Do systems of more “direct democracy”—such as ballot initiatives and referenda—empower voters or undermine a more thoughtful deliberative process? And does voting even matter in a complex, modern society where campaigns are dominated by money and issues are framed by lobbyists? The student’s grade is based on a substantial paper. This seminar may be taken for fulfillment of the Substantial Writing Requirement. Winter (3) Mr. Obama.

Forgive me my skepticism about Obama’s depth of knowledge about any aspect of the Constitution not wedded to race related issues.

in_awe on July 26, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Forgive me my skepticism about Obama’s depth of knowledge about any aspect of the Constitution not wedded to race related issues.

in_awe on July 26, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Or even those issues. He is not a “scholar” in that he has produced no research papers or law review articles. He was never a professor. He hasn’t really ever practiced law. there is no evidence anywhere of any particular expertise relating to any legal topic. I taught constitutional law at a local college. Am I now a constitutional law “expert”? I wouldn’t hold myself out as one. (Although I find the “experts” to be questionable anyway. Despite the contortions of the supreme court and many experts, it is not that hard of a document to understand).

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I meant “or even other issues”.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 4:21 PM

It’s also funny how, after 2 years of his presidency, the left still needs to use the “constitutional law professor” lie as their evidence of Obama’s alleged brilliance.

I suppose that’s understandable, as nothing in his presidency thus far demonstrates any significant intellect.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 4:47 PM

He hasn’t really ever practiced law. there is no evidence anywhere of any particular expertise relating to any legal topic.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I found some fascinating data on his wiki page yesterday-which has for some reason mysteriously vanished the years of his life between 1996 and 2006.

For “4 years” he held a “full time” position at a Leftisy Chicago law firm, but in all of those years produced a pathetic amount of “billable hours”. I figured out that this “time time lawyer” worked those four years for about 18 hours a week.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I figured out that this “full time lawyer” worked those four years for about 18 hours a week.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2011 at 5:12 PM

For “4 years” he held a “full time” position at a Leftisy Chicago law firm, but in all of those years produced a pathetic amount of “billable hours”. I figured out that this “time time lawyer” worked those four years for about 18 hours a week.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Huh? Not that I don’t believe that he did no real legal work, but how could you possibly find out his billable hours? Firms don’t typically release an individual’s billable hours.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2