OCinBuffalo Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 is he deflecting blame about the illegal immigrants thing....already? I don't want to discuss the illegal immigrant thing, there is already a thread for that. No. What I want to know is the "conventional wisdom" seems to be that the Republicans will end up taking all the blame for the sequester cuts. And, a quick read of the headlines at RCP, show that a whole lot of people subscribe to this. Chait and his smug, "I have no idea what the Republicans are doing"....etc. If there is "no" chance that Obama can be blamed, why is Carney deflecting the blame not 24 hours after the story broke? Is it possible that: the conventional wisdom is merely hubris? If this was true why isn't Obama out delivering another campaign speech reveling in the blaming of the GOP? Why is he hiding behind "I didn't know" instead? "I didn't know, blame my employee instead"...the surest sign that the man isn't worthy of the office he holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Obama will take blame if it carries on for a long time and the effects end up being obvious. And that truth is conventional wisdom. I don't know where you get the impression he can sail through this if bad things start happening. GOP will also take heavy heat. Obviously the House has an election in 2 years, Obama will never have one again...that's the real advantage from a political perspective. Dems basically put it all on a Obama...he eats the sin from his 2nd term immunity...GOP have to fight to stay. Edited February 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Obama will never have one again...that's the real advantage from a political perspective. Which is what really boggles the mind - why the !@#$ is he still making campaign stops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Which is what really boggles the mind - why the !@#$ is he still making campaign stops? I hope that was a rhetorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Which is what really boggles the mind - why the !@#$ is he still making campaign stops? Third term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 28, 2013 Author Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Obama will take blame if it carries on for a long time and the effects end up being obvious. And that truth is conventional wisdom. I don't know where you get the impression he can sail through this if bad things start happening. GOP will also take heavy heat. Obviously the House has an election in 2 years, Obama will never have one again...that's the real advantage from a political perspective. Dems basically put it all on a Obama...he eats the sin from his 2nd term immunity...GOP have to fight to stay. How could you not know? I said above: take a look at RCP's homepage. Or, watch Fox, MSNBC or CNN. Especially MSNBC...as they are incredibly smug currently, and almost giddy about the sequester, and using it to "destroy the Republican party". The overriding assumption: Obama can do as he likes, because regardless of what happens, the Republicans will take all the blame. There is no election advantage in the House, and the Democrats are just beginning to realize it. Yeah the redistricting is a problem for them, but what is a larger problem? All their voters are packed into a relatively few # of districts, which means regardless of redistricting, winning the House is practically impossible for Democrats. The Senate at this point is 50/50. But really? This is about Obama and his team's reaction, today, to what is happening today. How dumb are these people pushing this assumption, and basing all their articles about it...while Obama's actions are proving them wrong at the same time? The WH is now demanding that Bob Woodward stop stating the facts of how the sequester came about, and threatening him? Threatening a reporter? What could they possibly think is going to be solved by doing that? So, now we have 2 behavioral indications that no, the WH sees the blame as not going to be on the Republicans. Why are they behaving this way, if the assumption is correct? Edited February 28, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Woodward might be the Edward R. Murrow of his age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I don't think there's any deeper meaning here. It's like asking: "Why is that team still playing defense? They're up by 25 points in the 4th quarter?" You've still got to win the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 28, 2013 Author Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) I don't think there's any deeper meaning here. It's like asking: "Why is that team still playing defense? They're up by 25 points in the 4th quarter?" You've still got to win the game. But that's the very point: the asumption = no, in fact Obama doesn't have to win the game, he's already won it. Look, as each hour goes by the story on this thing changes. Now Obama himself is playing it down, after spending this whole month playing it up as a massive crisis? Now he's the one telling us it won't be that bad? The latest article on RCP is concludes with "The best for Obama is to accept that he has lost, and move on"? None of this looks like "wining the game", does it? Edited February 28, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I don't think there's any deeper meaning here. It's like asking: "Why is that team still playing defense? They're up by 25 points in the 4th quarter?" You've still got to win the game. And you're completely wrong. In an athlete's analogy it's as if he's won the big one, retired from playing and has taken a job running a big company. But instead of being in his office running said company he keeps running outside to play football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 The WH is now demanding that Bob Woodward stop stating the facts of how the sequester came about, and threatening him? Threatening a reporter? What could they possibly think is going to be solved by doing that? The sad part is that it's working. the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers ARE CALLING OUT WOODWARD, not the White House. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Which is what really boggles the mind - why the !@#$ is he still making campaign stops? Because that is all he can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 The sad part is that it's working. the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers ARE CALLING OUT WOODWARD, not the White House. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction . . . THEY FIGURE THERE’S SAFETY IN NUMBERS: Jim Geraghty: “The folks who write the hit pieces on Bob Woodward in the coming days will be outing themselves as the administration’s favorite puppets.” Remember: They’re not attacking Bob Woodward because they think he’s lying. They’re attacking him because they think he’s telling the truth. The Bob Woodward story isn’t important. That’s why liberals and the media (PTR) are losing their minds over it. USA Today: “All we can say is: We know more than a few reporters have received similar e-mails from White House officials. Yelling has also been known to happen.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Government Spending is getting Cut (well at least slowed a little), Republicans should rejoice with the Sequester. The problem is they are saying the same things as the President, that they cuts would be bad.... but they won't, 2% of the bloated Federal Budget is not crisis mode, heck 10% isn't either... Repubublicans should cite the Cuts as a win and stick to their guns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Government Spending is getting Cut (well at least slowed a little), Republicans should rejoice with the Sequester. The problem is they are saying the same things as the President, that they cuts would be bad.... but they won't, 2% of the bloated Federal Budget is not crisis mode, heck 10% isn't either... Repubublicans should cite the Cuts as a win and stick to their guns... When most people talk about cutting spending and their wish for small government they mean cutting the stuff that doesn't benefit them and a government that is small in the areas they deem unimportant - or in a semi biblical phrase it depends on whose ox is being gored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) http://news.yahoo.co...-001806621.html Well now Obama's lapdog Napolitano is getting in on the act. The release of illegals wasn't her fault and we're all less safe because she's going to lose the equivalent of 5,000 border patrol agents because of the evil Republicans. The cut, she said, would mean "the large narco traffickers, human smugglers," and other bad players could have easier access to the U.S. "We deal with a lot of bad actors and we will have fewer agents to do that with," she said. "We'll have fewer hours that the Coast Guard is going to be patrolling along our maritime shores." ... "I think a citizen is going to notice. If there's citizens that are trying to go back and forth to Mexico and Canada, to the land ports of entry, where we already have some problems with long lines at very busy times, you're going to see those lines really grow," she said. I'm sure her agents have been instructed to do their best to be inept because of the sequestration cuts. It also seems like they're going to be forced - due to sequestration - to go out of their way to inconvenience people at the borders while not patrolling for illegal activity. Edited March 1, 2013 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 When most people talk about cutting spending and their wish for small government they mean cutting the stuff that doesn't benefit them and a government that is small in the areas they deem unimportant - or in a semi biblical phrase it depends on whose ox is being gored. Some truth in that. But many people care about when and how as much if not more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 This is mommy management at its worst. Oh yeah? Oh yeah? You won't give me what I want? Well, I'll show YOU who's the boss! slash/burn/obfuscate/trash/work-to-less-than-rule/etc./etc./etc. Slightly off topic - A few years ago we turned down the school budget in our town. The teachers go so bent out of shape that they refused to volunteer for after school activities - like chaperoning the Senior Prom. But, they're in it for the kids - not the money. This year the School Board changed the timing for passing the budget. We won't have it on the ballot again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts