"What if Obama can't lead?" :o

[IDBillzFan]

<searching memory banks> Biden....Biden....Biden.....nope, doesn't ring a bell.

 

Old, white dude. Occasionally stands next to the president and says stupid stuff like "This is a big phucking deal."

 

Kinda looks like this...

 

[Chef Jim]

Old, white dude. Occasionally stands next to the president and says stupid stuff like "This is a big phucking deal."

 

Kinda looks like this...

 

 

This guy?

 

[/dev/null]

This guy?

 

 

Isn't that the guy who encourages people to randomly discharge firearms into the air?

[Chef Jim]

Isn't that the guy who encourages people to randomly discharge firearms into the air?

 

If it is I'd vote for him.

[B-Man]

Well written opinion piece: http://www.washingto...ica-staggering/

 

 

Ineptness of Obama leaves America staggering

 

That was America standing behind President Obama in the Rose Garden this week as he stammered, and droned on and on, trying to explain away the epic disaster that Obamacare has become even before it has begun.

 

“About three weeks ago, as the federal government shut down,” he began.

 

Expectant and hopeful, America stood tall on the steps behind him for as long as she could. She was proud and gazed at the nation’s new top health care provider proudly. But as the excuses and mistruths mounted and the barrage of words rolled on and on and on, she could not help but to begin to waver....

 

 

Read more: http://www.washingto...2#ixzz2iaPwtQ1H

[B-Man]

OBAMACARE AND THE Absentee Presidency.

 

“He and his close-knit advisers insist on a bad-news-ban around the Oval Office. Obama operates in a world without critical information — and that is his defense to two debacles. Critics understate the reluctance and inability of this president to lead and to govern. . . . This is a president who set up a system in which he imagines he is relieved of responsibility.”

 

 

Related: “He often appeared impatient or disengaged while listening to the debate, sometimes scrolling through messages on his BlackBerry or slouching and chewing gum.”

 

 

 

 

 

Obama Disassociates From Reality.

 

Mr. Obama, who at this point in his presidency has developed certain stale and unhealthy rhetorical habits, mocked Republicans and said it’s time for them to ‘stop rooting for [ObamaCare’s] failures.’ But the problem the president faces isn’t Republicans rooting for its failures; it’s that the program is collapsing on its own.

 

The GOP had nothing to do with its development. The president desperately wishes he could share the blame for what has gone wrong. Except that every Republican in Congress opposed the Affordable Care Act. This is Barack Obama’s signature achievement; he and his party are joined at the hip to it. They are as inseparable as salt and water in the ocean.”

[B-Man]

Daniel Henninger: Obama’s Credibility Is Melting:

All of a sudden, from Washington to Riyadh, Barack Obama’s credibility is melting.

 

Amid the predictable collapse the past week of HealthCare.gov’s too-complex technology, not enough notice was given to Sen. Marco Rubio’s statement that the chances for success on immigration reform are about dead. Why? Because, said (reform Supporter) Sen. Rubio,

there is “a lack of trust” in the president’s commitments. . . .

 

When belief in the average politician’s word diminishes, the political world marks him down and moves away. With the president of the United States, especially one in his second term, the costs of the credibility markdown become immeasurably greater. Ask the Saudis.

 

Last weekend the diplomatic world was agog at the refusal of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah to accept a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Global disbelief gave way fast to clear understanding: The Saudis have decided that the United States is no longer a reliable partner in Middle Eastern affairs. . . .

 

Bluntly, Mr. Obama’s partners are concluding that they cannot do business with him. They don’t trust him. Whether it’s the Saudis, the Syrian rebels, the French, the Iraqis, the unpivoted Asians or the congressional Republicans, they’ve all had their fill of coming up on the short end with so mercurial a U.S. president. And when that happens, the world’s important business doesn’t get done. It sits in a dangerous and volatile vacuum.

 

 

Yeah, but Mitt Romney once put a dog carrier on top of his car.

 

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/178051/

[Chef Jim]

And the one that is surprisingly (well maybe not so surprisingly) silent on all this is Mitt Romney. I wonder had he won and these things were happening on his watch would Obama be so quiet? No one knows but interesting to think about.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Chef Jim

[/dev/null]

And the one that is surprisingly (well maybe not so surprisingly) silent on all this is Mitt Romney. I wonder had he won and these things were happening on his watch would Obama be so quiet? No one knows but interesting to think about.

 

Maybe because Mitt Romney isn't a self centered attention whore?

 

If the tables were turned, Obama would be going around the world on an I told you so tour. Obama would of course be willing to come back and solve all of our problems, but only if that silly 22nd Amendment were repealed or waived for him

Edited October 24, 2013 by /dev/null

[GG]

And the one that is surprisingly (well maybe not so surprisingly) silent on all this is Mitt Romney. I wonder had he won and these things were happening on his watch would Obama be so quiet? No one knows but interesting to think about.

 

I don't find it surprising that he's not saying anything, as it's the norm to let the POTUS govern to his best abilities without commentary from past office holders or election losers. Cheney's commentary a few years back was a departure from protocol, because he thought Obama's foreign policies were dangerous.

 

All bets are off starting next year in mid-term elections and the 2016 race in sight.

[DC Tom]

And the one that is surprisingly (well maybe not so surprisingly) silent on all this is Mitt Romney. I wonder had he won and these things were happening on his watch would Obama be so quiet? No one knows but interesting to think about.

 

Which gets me thinking...most ex-presidents stay very quiet and guarded about their comments during their successors' administrations.

 

Between his ego and the rabid personality cult that surrounds him, one wonders if Obama can hold himself to that standard.

[Keukasmallies]

Maybe change the city's name to Washington, Oz.

[Tiberius]

And the one that is surprisingly (well maybe not so surprisingly) silent on all this is Mitt Romney. I wonder had he won and these things were happening on his watch would Obama be so quiet? No one knows but interesting to think about.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone's happy Romney STFU.

 

 

I wonder if the Tea Party would be ready to Primary him in 2016?

[DC Tom]

Maybe change the city's name to Washington, Oz.

 

 

Surprisingly, a lot of the federal workforce is pretty well grounded in reality (we were discussing delaying the mandate yesterday, and I was surprised at how many people were adamant that the employer mandate delay as an executive change to an enacted law was unconstitutional).

 

But it seems that as soon as you reach the level where your job description includes "talking to Congress", you're living in cloud-cuckoo land.

[IDBillzFan]

Between his ego and the rabid personality cult that surrounds him, one wonders if Obama can hold himself to that standard.

 

Not a chance.

[Chef Jim]

I'm pretty sure everyone's happy Romney STFU.

 

No kidding because the past 5 years have gone swimmingly well.

[B-Man]

Obamacare Redefines the Shutdown

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

 

Democratic senators up for reelection in 13 months are now embracing, in their calls to delay Obamacare, the same themes as did the House Republicans and a few senators a few weeks ago—hoping to preempt mounting criticism. In this surreal landscape, three weeks ago Obamacare was unquestioned “settled” law (despite the fact that the president himself unsettled the law by suspending the employer mandate) that only dead-ender “anarchists” and “hostage takers” wished to stop or amend.

 

Now some Democrats apparently think the law still is fluid, and thus, as we were once reminded, want to go against the administration’s mandate of the last election, the ruling of the Supreme Court, and the majority of the Senate in stopping the federalization of health care. If the rollout of Obamacare gets any more incoherent, soon Barack Obama may be echoing the same concerns of Ted Cruz and the former naysayers in his willingness to suspend or delay his own signature legislation.

 

At that point, do the tea-party “Taliban” become rebranded as prescient, sober and judicious legislators who provided a model for what Democrats now in Johnny-come-lately fashion emulate—or do Democrats up for reelection become obstructionists who need to get over it and move on?

 

 

.

Edited October 24, 2013 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

Not a chance.

 

I actually think he could restrain himself, but his personality cult won't let him.

 

Obamacare Redefines the Shutdown

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

 

Democratic senators up for reelection in 13 months are now embracing, in their calls to delay Obamacare, the same themes as did the House Republicans and a few senators a few weeks ago—hoping to preempt mounting criticism. In this surreal landscape, three weeks ago Obamacare was unquestioned “settled” law (despite the fact that the president himself unsettled the law by suspending the employer mandate) that only dead-ender “anarchists” and “hostage takers” wished to stop or amend.

 

Now some Democrats apparently think the law still is fluid, and thus, as we were once reminded, want to go against the administration’s mandate of the last election, the ruling of the Supreme Court, and the majority of the Senate in stopping the federalization of health care. If the rollout of Obamacare gets any more incoherent, soon Barack Obama may be echoing the same concerns of Ted Cruz and the former naysayers in his willingness to suspend or delay his own signature legislation.

 

At that point, do the tea-party “Taliban” become rebranded as prescient, sober and judicious legislators who provided a model for what Democrats now in Johnny-come-lately fashion emulate—or do Democrats up for reelection become obstructionists who need to get over it and move on?

 

 

.

 

Thus the arrant stupidity of Obama's retrenchment. The web site wasn't ready, wasn't going to be ready for some time. So he could have gone to the House Republicans with that in his back pocket and said "No, I won't let you defund it...but I'll tell you what, you delay it for a year and I'll deliver the Senate for you, and in return you give me the CR and a debt ceiling increase to cover us to calendar year 2015."

 

Sure, he compromises, and the Republicans get to crow about a half-victory, which is slightly embarrassing. But in return, he gets time he know he needs to straighten out this mess. Instead, he picks a fight, insists it can't be delayed...and is now going to have to delay it anyway. Much more embarrassing, with him additionally looking like an idiot in the bargain.

 

He could have compromised, looked reasonable, and got EVERYTHING he needed. Instead, he had to make sure the Republicans were as marginalized as possible, even if it was at his own expense. Incredibly stupid way to work The Hill.

[boyst]

 

 

 

Related: “He often appeared impatient or disengaged while listening to the debate, sometimes scrolling through messages on his BlackBerry or slouching and chewing gum.”

seriously. They call him Mr Obama. He is the damn President. He should be addressed as such.

[DC Tom]

seriously. They call him Mr Obama. He is the damn President. He should be addressed as such.

 

It's actually been the standard for at least 16 years to call the President by either "President" or "Mr."