Once again, President Obama uses the REPUBLICAN framing on an important issue.

[bvar22]

In remarks about the Economy yesterday,
President Obama stated:

"If these budget negotiations break down, we could end up having to shut down the government...,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20049849-503544.html

There is no "WE" here.
It is THE REPUBLICANS who are threatening to SHUT DOWN the government.
There is absolutely NO need for the Democrats to take ownership of the "shutdown".
This was an easy touchdown for the Democrats, but our President punted instead.



Man does this guy NEED some schooling in Horse Trading.
Its almost like he WANTS to lose.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Not only did he punt

He did it from the end zone.


Sheesh.

:thumbsdown:


TG, TT

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. He doesn't want to lose, he's WINNING - getting what he wants every time

The problem is what he wants isn't what you or I want. He doesn't need schooling in horse-trading, he needs to stop being a fucking republican sympathizer, and that's not going to happen.

[polichick]

10. As sickening as it is, this is probably the truth.

[Cronus Protagonist]

26. If he walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lays lame duck eggs

Maybe he's a pan dimensional chess playing leftie... WTF are some people thinking?

[tavalon]

37. Hey, now, he's only been in this job 3 years.....

It takes a while to learn the job. Give the guy more time before you start criticizing him!:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Enthusiast]

29. Sickening is the word.

Literally sickening.

[tomp]

40. agreed. people think he doesn't know what he's doing.

he knows exactly what he's doing. he's selling out the vast majority of the u.s. to the interests of the rich,

while of course trying to fool us into thinking he is on our side. THAT IS HIS ROLE AND HE'S VERY GOOD AT IT...IT"S WORKING.

[ThomCat]

47. He doesn't need to stop being a "republican sympathizer."

He needs to stop being a republican. x(

He spends more time demanding and defending republican bills and republican policies than classic democratic ones.

He keeps accepting the republican efforts to frame every issue and every debate. He keeps accepting republican versions of bills and pushing them as if they are the most liberal option possible. (and somehow even has a whole lot of idiots here believing it most of the time.)

When he insults the right, it's just before he caves in and gives the right exactly what they want, so we can see that the insults were just for PR value so that it looks like he's distancing himself from the right while he's actually joining them. But when he insults the left he really isn't doesn't ever give an inch and clearly doesn't believe in the goals of the left. He really seems to think that the left is wrong, and our ideas suck. Which just makes it even more obvious that he's a right-winger, and that his media-image during his campaign was all smoke and mirrors to lie his way into the oval office.

[n2doc]

3. Reminded of the famous comeback

"What's this WE business, kemosabe?" Too bad Reid or Pelosi didn't say that....

[undeterred]

4. WE could end up losing the White House.

No, YOU could end up losing the White House, President Obama.

[polichick]

11. But WE could nominate somebody else - there could be a grassroots draft.

[grahamhgreen]

15. There has to be. We can not allow Obama to be the spokeman for the left.

[Doctor_J]

5. He is the weakest president in my life time

I'm 55, and watching him makes me cringe. He's nearly as repulsive as his predecessor. I now know why he was allowed to win the 2008 election - he's the Repukes' dream come true.

[Toucano]

22. I can't listen to him anymore. The man is absolutely nauseating!

Warren at the inauguration should have been a prologue, but I defended him then.

For fucksakesss!

He doesn't reach across the aisle. He moves in, sets up his desk there, and has his freakin' mail forwarded there!

[Enthusiast]

30. Oh yeah. Allowed it was.

Of this I have no doubt. The 'powers' now have such complete control over the electoral process that no one can be elected unless it is through their unspoken approval. 2000 being just the most glaring and obvious example.

[Catherina]

6. WE? Rec'd n/t

[msongs]

7. at least he wasn't fawning over the bush family today nt

[unblock]

8. hmm, not sure what the problem is.

while a shutdown is red meat for the tea party, it's still more likely than not a strategic negative for the republicans, especially if it's later (closer to the elections) rather than earlier, or worse, goes on for too long.

remember how gingrich got burned when republicans tried this stunt before. they launch into this crap head first thinking it's a wonderful idea, but it just makes them look obstinant, oblivious, and incompentent.

obama does best, strategically speaking, to seem like he wanted to hammer out an agreement in order to avoid a shutdown, but to engineer things so that it does actually happens, and then wait for the republicans come (privately, of course) begging to reopen the government on pelosi's and reid's terms. by pinning it on budget negotiations, which he is "hoping" will avert a shutdown, i think he does what he wants to do. i think it's a pretty fine point to say he should be avoiding the word "we" in the context of a government shutdown when congress and the president are the ones holding the key to the puzzle.


all this ignores the human suffering during a shutdown, of course; i'm only talking about the politics of it.

[bvar22]

12. Thats because Bill Clinton KNEW how to play that hand.

You didn't hear Bill out there talking about how WE shut down the government.
He put the blame exactly where it belonged, and made sure America knew about it.
.
.
.
Boy, I NEVER believed I would be wishing that Bill "NAFTA will be GOOD for Working Americans" Clinton was still president.



Who will STAND UP and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Lofty Rhetoric, Empty Promises, and Excuses are meaningless now.

"By their WORKS you will know them,"
And by their WORKS they will be held accountable.

[Enthusiast]

31. But Obama is admitting ownership

of a shutdown before the fact. THAT is the point. It is a preemptive cave. Totally unacceptable.

[gateley]

9. He's still being political. If he came out and said it was due to the Republicans (

like Boehner and others have been saying about Dems all along), good luck in getting ANY concessions out of them. He knows exactly whose fault it is, but he's gotta play the game.

I admit, it's painful to watch.

Jeez, you have to treat these Republicans like they're spoiled little brats - it is so demeaning to our very government.

[bvar22]

13. Bill Clinton "played the game" much better in 1994.

Since when does Obama get concessions from the Republicans? :shrug:

[gateley]

18. Well, you have a point. nt

[tavalon]

38. Concessions? That won't happen and he knows it or he should by now

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think the thing he and all the beltway politicians are good at is Kabuki theater.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

32. What else the fuck are we supposed to believe?

Really.

[tomp]

41. the unavoidable conclusion. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. grahamgreen,

I concluded that a long time ago.

[Autumn]

16. we.Damn n/t

[eilen]

17. Obama's language-- I think he needs to borrow Bill's speech

Government text isn't copyrighted.

Abstract : The president issued a statement after meeting with GOP congressional leaders Tuesday morning saying Republican budget plans sacrifice the common good to their ideology.

Full Text:

President Bill Clinton: Good afternoon. Today, as of noon, almost half of the federal government employees are idle. The government is partially shutting down because Congress has failed to pass the straightforward legislation necessary to keep the government running without imposing sharp hikes in Medicare premiums and deep cuts in education and the environment.

It is particularly unfortunate that the Republican Congress has brought us to this juncture because, after all, we share a central goal -- balancing the federal budget. We must lift the burden of debt that threatens the future of our children and grandchildren, and we must free-up money so that the private sector can invest, create jobs, and our economy can continue its healthy growth.

Since I took office, we have cut the federal deficit nearly in half. It is important that the people of the United States know that the United States now has proportionately the lowest government budget deficit of any large industrial nation. We have eliminated 200,000 positions from the federal bureaucracy since I took office. Our federal government is now the smallest percentage of the civilian work force it has been since 1933, before the New Deal. We have made enormous progress, and now we must finish the job.

Let me be clear -- we must balance the budget. I proposed to Congress a balanced budget, but Congress refused to enact it. Congress has even refused to give me the line-item veto to help me achieve further deficit reduction. But we must balance this budget without resorting to their priorities, without their unwise cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, in education and the environment.

Five months ago I proposed my balanced budget plan. It balances the budget in the right way. It cuts hundreds of wasteful and outdated programs, but it upholds our fundamental values -- to provide opportunity, to respect our obligations to our parents and our children, to strengthen families and to strengthen America -- because it preserves Medicare and Medicaid, it invests in education and technology, it protects the environment, and it gives the tax cuts to working families for child rearing and for education. Unfortunately, Republican leaders in Washington have put ideology ahead of common sense and shared values in their pursuit of a budget plan.

We can balance the budget without doing what they seek to do. We can balance the budget without the deep cuts in education, without the deep cuts in the environment, without letting Medicare wither on the vine, without imposing tax increases on the hardest-pressed working families in America. I am fighting for a balanced budget that is good for America and consistent with our values. If they'll give me the tools, I'll balance the budget.

I vetoed the spending bill sent to me by Congress last night because America can never accept under pressure what it would not accept in free and open debate. I strongly believe their budget plan is bad for America. I believe it will undermine opportunity, make it harder for families to do the work that they have to do, weaken our obligations to our parents and our children, and make our country more divided. So I will continue to fight for the right kind of balanced budget.

Remember, the Republicans are following a very explicit strategy announced last April by Speaker Gingrich, to use the threat of a government shutdown to force America to accept their cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, to accept their cuts in education and technology and the environment.


Yesterday they sent me legislation that said -- we will only keep the government going, and we will only let it pay its debts if and only if we accept their cuts in Medicare, their cuts in education, their cuts in the environment, and their repeal of 25 years of bipartisan commitments to protect the environment and public health.

On behalf of the American people, I said no. If America has to close down access to education, to a clean environment, to affordable health care, to keep our government open, then the price is too high.

My message to Congress is simple -- you say you want to balance the budget, so let's say yes to balancing the budget, but let us together say no to these deep and unwise cuts in education, technology, the environment, Medicare and Medicaid. Let's say no to raising taxes on the hardest- pressed working families in America. These things are not necessary to balancing the budget. Yes to balancing the budget, no to the cuts.

I know the loss of government service will cause disruption in the lives of millions of Americans. We will do our very best to minimize this hardship. But there is, after all, a simple solution to the problem. All Congress has to do is to pass a straightforward bill to let government perform its duties and pay its debts. Then we can get back to work and resolve our differences over the budget in an open, honest, and straightforward manner.

Before I conclude, I'd like to say a word to the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who will be affected by this partial shutdown.

I know, as your fellow citizens know, that the people who are affected by this shutdown are public servants. They're the people who process our Social Security applications, help our veterans apply for benefits, care for the national parks that are our natural heritage. They conduct the medical research that saves people's lives. They are important to America, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I will do everything I can to see that they receive back pay and that their families do not suffer because of this.

But it is my solemn responsibility to stand against a budget plan that is bad for America and to stand up for a balanced budget that is good for America. And that is exactly what I intend to do.

Thank you very much.


There are only a few edits needed and a war or two to end.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

33. That is a thing of beauty.

What a contrast with today.

[Doctor_J]

51. Holy crap! What a speech.

He actually blamed Gingrinch for the shutdown! Stood up to him! What a concept.

[jillan]

19. My biggest fantasy? Obama hires Lakoff as chief of staff. But in reality

I question if Obama has even read Lakoff.

[paulk]

20. he is a poor negotiator

language is important - you would think he would have figured that out by now

unless he put it that way on purpose, hoping for that middle ground, independent or moderate Repug vote in 2012.

seems like he's been running for his own reelection since day one rather than leading the party

[Enthusiast]

34. If it was only being a poor negotiator.

No one can be THAT poor of a negotiator. Sorry.

This is no way to run for reelection.

[tavalon]

39. If he's been running for reelection from day one,

I might suggest that throwing one's grassroots juggernaut under the bus and continually dissing us might not be the best way to go. But, hey, I've never run a campaign.

[paulk]

53. the "grassroots juggernaut" won him the nomination

The Republicans, by nominating Palin, along with the economic meltdown, are what won Obama the Presidency, imo. Being an incumbent, he doesn't need the liberals or the grassroots to win the nomination this time around, and he's counting on winning their vote in the general because the alternative that the Republicans run will be batshit crazy. And the powers that be will back him because they've already got what they want in Obama - a right of center Rockefeller Republican, who talks the talk but walks their walk.

[_ed_]

44. Impossible for him to be that stupid

He's complicit with them. It's not that he's just a bad negotiator. He really believes in conservative principles.

[paulk]

54. I agree

[QC]

45. He might be bad at negotiation, but he's great at good cop/bad cop. n/t

[progressoid]

21. Pfft. You libruls just don't understand pan-dimentional chess.

k/r

[Hawkowl]

24. This thread foretells Obama's defeat in 2012

Book mark it. All the above objections are spot on and foretell a massive Dem under turnout in 2012.

[slay]

25. If it walks like a Republican, and it acts like a Republican..

(even though he talks better than one)... i'm just sayin.. :shrug:

[Bluebear]

27. .

[Enthusiast]

28. K&R. This is deeply disturbing.

Obama apologists tell us we must overlook such language by the president. But after while many of us have concluded that it is no mere slip of the tongue. When I voted for Obama I did not want or expect a moderate Republican.

[McCamy Taylor]

35. Agree. Assigning blame to the GOP for a shutdown is Politics 101.

Next thing you know, he will be talking about the "Democratic Recession."

[tavalon]

36. Almost?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. The truth will out.

[_ed_]

46. "We"

"If these budget negotiations break down, we could end up having to shut down the government...,"

He means "we" as in "me and the Repbulicans."

[Karmadillo]

48. Stop it! All of you! If you keep it up, we'll end up with a Republican who calls himself/herself

a Republican winning the 2012 election instead of a Republican who calls himself a Democrat. That's just madness.

[BzaDem]

50. If a Republican who calls himself a Republican wins the 2012 election

at least by (say) 2013, no one will attempt to claim Obama is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat. Reality has a tendency to clarify things.

[Karmadillo]

55. Reality is our friend. Such an outcome would point out that supporting Republicans

who claim to be Democrats opens the door for Republicans who feel no need for such pretence.

[juajen]

49. I don't fault Obama for this.

We are all in this boat together; he is simply emphasizing that point. The other words continue to divide us into us and them. Not productive. There will be plenty of people calling the pugs to task for this. Obama should not be one of them, IMHO.

[Bluebear]

57. He is supposed to be a leader of our party, not some non-partisan sage.

[Bluebear]

58. .

[mochajava666]

52. That's why he was put in that office by the Powers That Be

He was appointed to be the Washington Generals in order for it to look like a contest.

[inna]

56. wow. I've read the entire thread - 99% of people in this thread are getting it.

I wish it was representative of the general population. (Or is it?...)

[Bluebear]

59. Good question!

[Zorra]

60. Inclusiveness and bipartisan outreach.

"I feel your insanity, and I embrace it".

Some people just never seem to learn.
:puke:

[upi402]

61. there's more "WE" in that than WE would like to think

Freudian slip anyone?