UConn James Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/22/Laura-Ingraham-Sources-Say-Paul-Ryan-to-Replace-John-Boehner-as-Speaker Gotta say that Boehner's time has been a serious disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 http://www.breitbart...hner-as-Speaker Gotta say that Boehner's time has been a serious disappointment. Boehner has been put in an impossible situation. He can't lead the moderates in the Republican party and the Conservatives that were voted in to stop Obama's policies at the same time. Obama is the biggest charlatan of all time. He's made people think that our government can sustain a policy of spending 40% more than we take in forever. Boehner is ok but probably not Speaker for long. Ryan might be good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 the republicans put themselves in an impossible situation. on several vital issues in his first term obama tried to negotiate with them, they got very close, then the republicans walked away remember, i didnt vote for obama either time, i voted for a republican both elections (paul, huntsman). these republicans are the ones who are screwing **** up. its like theyve lost their damned minds. their job is to govern, not to just say no to everything. thats why i voted for SMART, PRINCIPLED, REASONABLE republicans for president - to kick that partys ass, get them to stop acting crazy, do their fkg jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 the republicans put themselves in an impossible situation. on several vital issues in his first term obama tried to negotiate with them, they got very close, then the republicans walked away remember, i didnt vote for obama either time, i voted for a republican both elections (paul, huntsman). these republicans are the ones who are screwing **** up. its like theyve lost their damned minds. their job is to govern, not to just say no to everything. thats why i voted for SMART, PRINCIPLED, REASONABLE republicans for president - to kick that partys ass, get them to stop acting crazy, do their fkg jobs Obama walked away in the summer of 2011, when a deal was already done. You are listening to too much Obama/left propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 do their fkg jobs You mean like pass a budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 23, 2012 Author Share Posted December 23, 2012 the republicans put themselves in an impossible situation. on several vital issues in his first term obama tried to negotiate with them, they got very close, then the republicans walked away remember, i didnt vote for obama either time, i voted for a republican both elections (paul, huntsman). these republicans are the ones who are screwing **** up. its like theyve lost their damned minds. their job is to govern, not to just say no to everything. thats why i voted for SMART, PRINCIPLED, REASONABLE republicans for president - to kick that partys ass, get them to stop acting crazy, do their fkg jobs Did you not even read the highlights of Bob Woodward's book? There was a deal in hand --- Boehner had the votes at a $800M tax increase on the rich --- and then Obama killed it when he did a bait-and-switch and demanded a $1.2T tax increase. One of the worst things the Republicans have done under Boehner's leadership is let the Democrats punt things until after elections. It gave a free pass and enabled Democrats to not have to run on SCREAMING records of tax-and-spend. It has let Obama/Dems stay on offense and dictate play. It has let Dems define Republicans. You can't just push this stuff to a later date and assume that you're going to be in a better negotiating position post-election. Boehner has been the epitome of zero backbone and zero cojones and look what it's got him. Ryan is very popular in the Congress, he's the numbers guy, he's the nominal party leader right now in this vacuum period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Did you not even read the highlights of Bob Woodward's book? There was a deal in hand --- Boehner had the votes at a $800M tax increase on the rich --- and then Obama killed it when he did a bait-and-switch and demanded a $1.2T tax increase. One of the worst things the Republicans have done under Boehner's leadership is let the Democrats punt things until after elections. It gave a free pass and enabled Democrats to not have to run on SCREAMING records of tax-and-spend. It has let Obama/Dems stay on offense and dictate play. It has let Dems define Republicans. You can't just push this stuff to a later date and assume that you're going to be in a better negotiating position post-election. Boehner has been the epitome of zero backbone and zero cojones and look what it's got him. Ryan is very popular in the Congress, he's the numbers guy, he's the nominal party leader right now in this vacuum period. I find it funny that the GOP would think Ryan would be a good house speaker. If you want to see absolutly nothing get done or happen in the next 4 years. Make Ryan the Speaker of the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I find it funny that the GOP Democrats would think Ryan Obama would be a good house speaker President. If you want to see absolutly nothing get done or happen in the next 4 years. Make Ryan Obama the Speaker of the House President. Forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I find it funny that the GOP would think Ryan would be a good house speaker. If you want to see absolutly nothing get done or happen in the next 4 years. Make Ryan the Speaker of the House. Ryan is very good at articulating his position and really knows the budget. Obama, after 4 years is still a rookie in those matters and is unqualified to even carry Ryan's lunch bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Did you not even read the highlights of Bob Woodward's book? There was a deal in hand --- Boehner had the votes at a $800M tax increase on the rich --- and then Obama killed it when he did a bait-and-switch and demanded a $1.2T tax increase. One of the worst things the Republicans have done under Boehner's leadership is let the Democrats punt things until after elections. It gave a free pass and enabled Democrats to not have to run on SCREAMING records of tax-and-spend. It has let Obama/Dems stay on offense and dictate play. It has let Dems define Republicans. You can't just push this stuff to a later date and assume that you're going to be in a better negotiating position post-election. Boehner has been the epitome of zero backbone and zero cojones and look what it's got him. Ryan is very popular in the Congress, he's the numbers guy, he's the nominal party leader right now in this vacuum period. by stating facts like this, you assume people will hear them, and by this very board, it will be ignored. Look, Congress has such an abysmal approval rating, Obama lay blame on them for literally anything. Listen, Plan B was a Pelosi redact, but it was shot down by Dems... No matter how far Reps move to the Dem side, they are always the bad guy, because of lack of communication with the public. And until they have someone who can get up there, and dumb it down, and make people understand, the Reps are lost... Ryan is very good at articulating his position and really knows the budget. Obama, after 4 years is still a rookie in those matters and is unqualified to even carry Ryan's lunch bucket. I disagree.... Ryan is very good at knowing his position, but terrible at dumbing it down enough for people to understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 by stating facts like this, you assume people will hear them, and by this very board, it will be ignored. Look, Congress has such an abysmal approval rating, Obama lay blame on them for literally anything. Listen, Plan B was a Pelosi redact, but it was shot down by Dems... No matter how far Reps move to the Dem side, they are always the bad guy, because of lack of communication with the public. And until they have someone who can get up there, and dumb it down, and make people understand, the Reps are lost... I disagree.... Ryan is very good at knowing his position, but terrible at dumbing it down enough for people to understand I don't know, I understand him very well. Maybe with a little work and the realization that the Speakers job is different than being the policy, numbers guy he could explain it very well to those that matter. He still won't be able to convince those that expect to have their mortgages, gas and utilities paid for them by the newly annointed king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Ryan is very good at articulating his position and really knows the budget. Obama, after 4 years is still a rookie in those matters and is unqualified to even carry Ryan's lunch bucket. So good at articulating his position the Joe Biden; a man who would challenge a blind man to a staring contest, mopped the floor with him in a debate. And Biden's an idiots to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 So good at articulating his position the Joe Biden; a man who would challenge a blind man to a staring contest, mopped the floor with him in a debate. And Biden's an idiots to boot. Living up to your reputation here, you are once again delusional. Biden only won that debate in the eyes of the ignorant. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Living up to your reputation here, you are once again delusional. Biden only won that debate in the eyes of the ignorant. Sorry. You know, it really warms my heart to know that the nation is moving in the opposite direction of where idiots like you want to take it. Good Night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 You know, it really warms my heart to know that the nation is moving in the opposite direction of where idiots like you want to take it. Good Night. Feel comfortable that you and Shanika are going to have all of your expenses paid by Obama. You suck on a delusional teet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Did you not even read the highlights of Bob Woodward's book? There was a deal in hand --- Boehner had the votes at a $800M tax increase on the rich --- and then Obama killed it when he did a bait-and-switch and demanded a $1.2T tax increase. my understanding is that was a separate deal that fell through bc both sides had asked for more than the other was willing to give. i cant recall what exactly it was the republicans were demanding but it may have been related to steep cuts in medicare i believe. in any event, it was not as simple as you are portraying it here i am willing to review any balanced links anyone may have on this topic to refresh my memory. pls keep in mind i dont play the partisan games so pls provide the least biased sources you can find nevertheless, it was clear to me that obama had gone much further than the republicans in his first term to find consensus and was greeted with intransigence. now in his second term it is clear he has decided to press his advantage hard, perhaps too hard, but such is the consequence of securing such a sweeping victory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 my understanding is that was a separate deal that fell through bc both sides had asked for more than the other was willing to give. i cant recall what exactly it was the republicans were demanding but it may have been related to steep cuts in medicare i believe. in any event, it was not as simple as you are portraying it here i am willing to review any balanced links anyone may have on this topic to refresh my memory. pls keep in mind i dont play the partisan games so pls provide the least biased sources you can find nevertheless, it was clear to me that obama had gone much further than the republicans in his first term to find consensus and was greeted with intransigence. now in his second term it is clear he has decided to press his advantage hard, perhaps too hard, but such is the consequence of securing such a sweeping victory A sweeping victory would have given the dems the House. Obama backed out of the deal in the summer of 2011 when he asked for more after a handshake deal was done, and Boehner had approached his people with the deal. Obama is now asking for much more than before and threatening to blast Republicans at his inaugural address and State of the Union address in order to make it appear their fault. Unless you want to be called Jersey Sue, I'd suggest you do your own work and look up your own sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 24, 2012 Author Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) my understanding is that was a separate deal that fell through bc both sides had asked for more than the other was willing to give. i cant recall what exactly it was the republicans were demanding but it may have been related to steep cuts in medicare i believe. in any event, it was not as simple as you are portraying it here i am willing to review any balanced links anyone may have on this topic to refresh my memory. pls keep in mind i dont play the partisan games so pls provide the least biased sources you can find nevertheless, it was clear to me that obama had gone much further than the republicans in his first term to find consensus and was greeted with intransigence. now in his second term it is clear he has decided to press his advantage hard, perhaps too hard, but such is the consequence of securing such a sweeping victory Again... "The Price of Politics" by Bob Woodward. You know, of Woodward and Bernstein fame? The debt deal was SO tantalizingly close last year. Boehner had wrestled the votes among even the fresh Tea Party Repubs for an $800M tax increase on high earners, that he and Obama had discussed as a framework. Then Obama said by telephone that it would have to be $1.2T in taxes increases. It was at that point that the debt limit was raised at the last minute and the fiscal cliff stuff put in place so the whole nasty-ass stuff could be put off until after the election. Worst tactical move Boehner could have made, in kicking the can down the road. Now, instead of there having been a watershed moment where Democrats proved to be the profligate tax-and-spenders that they are before the election, the GOP is about to kill their sacred cow and the Democrats --- who want spending increases so they can tear through that pile of the rich's money --- are negotiating to eat it. If Boehner had any balls he would say to earmark the tax increase for the deficit/debt. But he's proved to be a pushover to this administration, rather than flexing the House's spending muscles. He should be saying, If you want Dime One, we're talking spending cuts or GTFO. Edited December 24, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 my understanding is that was a separate deal that fell through bc both sides had asked for more than the other was willing to give. i cant recall what exactly it was the republicans were demanding but it may have been related to steep cuts in medicare i believe. in any event, it was not as simple as you are portraying it here i am willing to review any balanced links anyone may have on this topic to refresh my memory. pls keep in mind i dont play the partisan games so pls provide the least biased sources you can find nevertheless, it was clear to me that obama had gone much further than the republicans in his first term to find consensus and was greeted with intransigence. now in his second term it is clear he has decided to press his advantage hard, perhaps too hard, but such is the consequence of securing such a sweeping victory The verdict is in: Team Boehner has taken Round One of the great journalistic reconstruction of last year’s failed debt talks. Eight months after deficit talks between the nation’s top two elected officials collapsed, a 4,600-word inside-the-room narrative by The Washington Post on Sunday — the first of several sweeping accounts in the works — paints the Obama administration as walking away from a nearly done agreement with Boehner. And when the president eventually came around and wanted to cut a deal, Boehner said it was too late. In short, the Post piece bolsters the Boehner team’s narrative that it was Obama who got cold feet and became unwilling to strike a grand bargain to fix the nation’s finances. “The story makes it clear that the facts are as we’ve always described them,” said Michael Steel, Boehner’s spokesman, in a Sunday interview. “The speaker showed a great deal of courage by putting $800 billion in revenues through tax reform on the table, and the White House couldn’t close the deal. They moved the goal posts and refused to get serious.” The White House declined to talk about the story on the record. But senior advisers have long maintained it was GOP intransigence and Boehner’s inability to round up votes from his members that scuttled the deal. The efforts by several prominent journalists to revisit last year’s high-stakes talks — the New York Times Magazine’s Matt Bai is working on a similar piece, and Bob Woodward is writing a book on Obama’s handling of the economy — promise sustained attention on a critical moment of Obama’s first term that could factor into his reelection prospects. The negotiations with House Republicans were Obama’s clearest opportunity to realize his 2008 campaign pledge to usher in a more productive, bipartisan era in Washington. The president has since pivoted to make a more concerted appeal to the Democratic base, blasting those he calls intransigent Republicans at every opportunity. But in the Post’s version of events, Obama is portrayed as worrying he would face a backlash from the left if he pulled the trigger. And former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley provided surprising, on-the-record support of the GOP’s insistence that the president deserves blame for losing his nerve. Daley said the White House privately fretted that Democrats would go ballistic if the president agreed to $800 billion in new tax revenues when some Republican senators had signaled willingness to go along with as much as $2 trillion. “The Democratic leaders already thought we were idiot negotiators,” Daley said, according to the story. “So I called [boehner chief of staff] Barry [Jackson] and said, ‘What are we going to do here? How are we going to sell Democrats to take $800 billion when Republican senators have signed on to” nearly $2 trillion. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74163.html#ixzz2Fz5IQFTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 thanks mag. very interesting i admit i have not followed presidential politics as closely as i used to, mainly because i am so disappointed with the decreasing quality of the candidates over the last decade plus, but this obama getting cold feet is a topic i wasnt familiar with before. hes not someone i have anything invested in so i have no problem admitting it could be true, i just didnt see it back then either way, it does not relieve republicans from the requirement to get things done and not just be obstructionists. i didnt consider finally voting for obama in his reelection bid specifically bc he did not get enough things done, and i hold the gop to the same standard. far too many no votes on things that should have been simply procedure. one way or another both the president and congress must find enough consensus to address these difficult issues. this culture war weve been trapped in since 9/11 needs to stop and more than anything else that drives my voting patterns. but for now obama has won the narrative and simply voting no to everything is no longer an option. things need to move forward mostly on his agenda, we are just going to have to live with the results god i wish you people had nominated huntsman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts