Obama Steps Up to the Plate and Accepts Responsibility...Almost

[Jauronimo]

A question raised by President Obama's immortal line on CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday—"I think that, you know, as President, I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree"—is what that degree really is. Maybe 70% or 80% of the buck stops with him? Or is it halfsies?

Nope. Now we know: It turns out the figure is 10%. The other 90% is somebody else's fault.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016270614705726.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

And he's correct. He's tried to get both houses to work together and THEY failed America.

 

When they keep pulling the filibuster crap instead of the clear majority - no one wins. 59 - 42 is a clear majority .... so why are they failing ???

 

They R's want to see Obama's policies fail.

[truth on hold]

Well look when Obama first took over he immediately started saying every objection to anything he wanted was partisan and obstructionist by the repubs. It was very premature for him to be making those charges, a lot of the challenges were perectly legit. He did his fair share in alienating them right of the gate. Which was disappointing since he ran on a "reach across the aisle/uniter" theme

[Jauronimo]

Well look when Obama first took over he immediately started saying every objection to anything he wanted was partisan and obstructionist by the repubs. It was very premature for him to be making those charges, a lot of the challenges were perectly legit. He did his fair share in alienating them right of the gate. Which was disappointing since he ran on a "reach across the aisle/uniter" theme

Every president is going to make mistakes, and every president is going to be blamed, perhaps unfairly, when things do not go as smoothly as planned. That shouldn't surprise anyone. A leader has to accept accountability, however. The "its not my fault" mentality is not an endearing quality in a night manager at Denny's let alone the President of the US.

[Gary M]

And he's correct. He's tried to get both houses to work together and THEY failed America.

 

No he didn't.

 

he told them to get in the back seat!!

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

And he's correct. He's tried to get both houses to work together and THEY failed America.

 

When they keep pulling the filibuster crap instead of the clear majority - no one wins. 59 - 42 is a clear majority .... so why are they failing ???

 

They R's want to see Obama's policies fail.

 

Are you delusional? He told the R's to piss off. He had 2 years of D controlled everything. He is the most partisan president in modern US history.

[DC Tom]

http://online.wsj.co...hp_mostpop_read

 

Yes, I recall quite clearly when Harry Truman put a sign on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here...but somebody else made it happen."

[BillsFanM.D.]

And he's correct. He's tried to get both houses to work together and THEY failed America.

 

 

stop saying that. he had two years to do whatever he wanted. "I won....." remember????

[PearlHowardman]

Barack Obama is a failure because he's an incurable personality type B.

[Cinga]

And he's correct. He's tried to get both houses to work together and THEY failed America.

 

When they keep pulling the filibuster crap instead of the clear majority - no one wins. 59 - 42 is a clear majority .... so why are they failing ???

 

They R's want to see Obama's policies fail.

 

wow, I'm so glad people under 18 can't vote.... yet....

[OCinBuffalo]

And he's correct. He's tried to get both houses to work together and THEY failed America.

 

When they keep pulling the filibuster crap instead of the clear majority - no one wins. 59 - 42 is a clear majority .... so why are they failing ???

 

They R's want to see Obama's policies fail.

While I can believe that the idiocy of the first sentence did not slip by so many of you....(yes, Obama's party had complete control of government for the first 2 years...the fact that cap and trade isn't law right now...shows you just how much better Rs are at their jobs in Congress than Ds)....I imagine it's sheer stupidity of it that made you stop reading the rest of this post.

 

Complete control of government means: no fillibuster in the Senate. Moron. For 2 years, there was no fillibuster in the Senate.

 

Then, with Obamacare going as badly as it was....Massachusetts elected Scott Brown...to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat. (still have a hard time believing this) They did this...for the express purpose of stopping Obamacare...and the overreach of the far-left.

 

Yes, Democrats, who were correctly worried about the future of their party, trying to maintain the gains in the House and Senate they has so recently acquired, and trying to look out for the President they had elected...whom they saw(at the time) being beset by an out-of-control agenda....voted to stop other Democrats from bring them to ruin.

 

All to no avail: the election of Scott Brown, and the expectation that he would at least represent reasonable compromise on Obamacare....was set aside, in favor of corruption, dishonesty, and dishonor.

 

And, as these reasonable Mass Democrats were correct to fear, that returned: the slaughter of 2010.

 

In fact, if it wasn't for a few poorly chose Tea Party candidates....we wouldn't be talking about a Democratically controlled Senate.

 

 

Ahh...but moron....we are. We are talking about a Democratically controlled Senate...whose only role for the last 2 years has been to block anything that doesn't help Obama get re-elected.

 

That's because all your party cares about now....since every single bit of their agenda (green, shovel-ready, stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform) is now an election-losing issue....is the retention of power.

 

It's all you have left.