The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[brvheart 1,752]

I'm sure some of you have heard about Obama calling out Rush Limbaugh... here is his response.According to an account in the New York Post, President Barack Obama yesterday told Republican leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." With George W. Bush now off the stage, it may be that Obama and some of his fellow Democrats view Limbaugh, and not John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or any other elected official, as the true leader of the Republican opposition. This morning I asked Rush for his thoughts on all this, and here is his response: There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this. Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting: "If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town." To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle. Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle. One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

[Nimue1995 1]

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Lol Rush is just unhappy that one of his favorite techniques is coming back to bite him in the butt.

[CaneBrain 95]

Blah blah Rush Limbaugh pretending like he never attacks anyone blah blah blah

Rush recently admitted to openly rooting against Obama and therefore against America (not very patriotic). I figured the GOP would have turned on him by now. He hates America and wishes for the next 4 years to be bad. Thats unAmerican in my book.on a more serious note.....you could make a great argument that Limbaugh is the current figurehead (and most important "member") of the GOP. The Bush family is off the scene. Every GOP candidate for President had their star diminished. McCain got trounced by Obama. The rest of them lost to a guy in the primary who everyone thought had missed his window and was left for dead early in the race. There is a vacuum at the top of the Republican party right now. I think Obama is better off pretending Rush does not exist but thats me.

[strategy's_touch 0]

I have never heard rush in anything but a one-sided discussion format where the other person's mic is cut. if you ever listen to the guy, you'd know that he does on occasion talk a lot of shit on the current GOP. he isn't a serious threat to anyone... he's just one of many self-interested clowns.

[Balloon guy 158]

Rush recently admitted to openly rooting against Obama and therefore against America (not very patriotic). I figured the GOP would have turned on him by now. He hates America and wishes for the next 4 years to be bad. Thats unAmerican in my book.on a more serious note.....you could make a great argument that Limbaugh is the current figurehead (and most important "member") of the GOP. The Bush family is off the scene. Every GOP candidate for President had their star diminished. McCain got trounced by Obama. The rest of them lost to a guy in the primary who everyone thought had missed his window and was left for dead early in the race. There is a vacuum at the top of the Republican party right now. I think Obama is better off pretending Rush does not exist but thats me.

I agree with both points you make here.butI have listened to Rush for close to 20 years.I am always amazed at how badly people misjudge him and his show.He talks 15 hours a week every week and people pick one thing said in 1 minutes and try to pidgeon hole him into that one position.What he said was that if Obama carries through with his stated goals and plans, he hopes he fails, because those stated goals and plans would be bad for this country.He is really just using the exact same technique used by the left when they said they support the troops, but not the war.If Obama had said he wanted to destroy the ozone, everyone would be fine hoping for him to fail, in Rush's eyes, his plans are dangerous and would position this country in a downward spiral that would hurt us for decades.Funny thing is that most people upset about Rush saying this, were fine with the democrats saying this about Bush for 8 years.There;s a reason the man makes $45,000 an hour

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I agree with both points you make here.butI have listened to Rush for close to 20 years.I am always amazed at how badly people misjudge him and his show.He talks 15 hours a week every week and people pick one thing said in 1 minutes and try to pidgeon hole him into that one position.What he said was that if Obama carries through with his stated goals and plans, he hopes he fails, because those stated goals and plans would be bad for this country.He is really just using the exact same technique used by the left when they said they support the troops, but not the war.If Obama had said he wanted to destroy the ozone, everyone would be fine hoping for him to fail, in Rush's eyes, his plans are dangerous and would position this country in a downward spiral that would hurt us for decades.Funny thing is that most people upset about Rush saying this, were fine with the democrats saying this about Bush for 8 years.There;s a reason the man makes $45,000 an hour

This is a very good point. I have read upward of 40 posts berating Limbaugh on FCP and a couple of other sites. NOT ONE accurately portrayed what Limbaugh was saying. I imagine the vast majority didn't hear any of what he said anyway but are just parroting from their usual sources. I don't always agree with Rush and think the way he makes some of his points are silly, but the way this guy has been demonized is ridiculous. This has been done by people similar to the ones commenting on this forum. People who don't even listen to the show take something they hear from MoveOn.org which completely and intentionally misrepresent something he said and twist it around to make it as politically incorrect as possible. They then call him a hatemonger because of a false image they work night and day to create. One more point to you that bitch and moan about our current politicians. It is because of this kind of BS that politicians behave the way they do. They don't concern themselves with the truth because they know you won't concern yourself with the truth. They simply play to your emotions and do as they please. They know they can get away with anything because they know no matter how bad they screw things up they will have a demon and a story to march out for you to burn at the stake. (see Barney Frank) I like that the OP is trying to take a logical and objective look at the new administration but I wonder why so much of the obvious negative has been left out, it seems he is being a little over optimistic IMO.

[Balloon guy 158]

Reminds me of the last time Harry Reed and the democrats tried to censor Rush by writing a letter and sending it to the CEO of Clear Channel asking for Rush to be silenced. 40 Other democrats signed the letter, making it the first time in American history that the representatives of the government tried to forcibly silence a critic of theirs through intimidation.

Over the last 20 years, I've been called a chicken hawk. I have been accused of being blindly supportive of the military. Now all of a sudden I hate the military! All of a sudden I'm critical of soldiers who are critical of the war, which I have never done. I don't want to go through it, but you all know it. It leads to Harry Reid writing a letter and getting 40 senators to cosign it, sent to the corporate partner -- the CEO of the corporate partner of mine -- Clear Channel, asking him to essentially censure me by making me apologize. Well, I have the letter, and we're going to auction it off on eBay. All the proceeds, every dollar raised, goes to Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. The expenses for this are going to be paid by the seller. That's us. Every dollar raised, however much it ends up being is going to go to Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. And I would like to issue this challenge to Senator Reid and the 41 senators who signed his letter. You say you support the military. You say you're big, and you think it's patriotic, and that I was unpatriotic. Well, I would like for each of you, Senator Reid, and the 40 Senators who signed, to match whatever the winning bid is. Show us your support for the US military by all 41 of you pro-military people, Democrats in the Senate, match whatever the winning bid is and send that amount to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.

The letter sold for $2.2 millionRush matched it and donated $4.4 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.Harry Reid went to his home in Searchlight and cried

[brvheart 1,752]

Reminds me of the last time Harry Reed and the democrats tried to censor Rush by writing a letter and sending it to the CEO of Clear Channel asking for Rush to be silenced. 40 Other democrats signed the letter, making it the first time in American history that the representatives of the government tried to forcibly silence a critic of theirs through intimidation.The letter sold for $2.2 millionRush matched it and donated $4.4 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.Harry Reid went to his home in Searchlight and cried

Rush is such an asshole.

[Balloon guy 158]

Rush's reply to Byron YorkeThere are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

[akoff 0]

Reminds me of the last time Harry Reed and the democrats tried to censor Rush by writing a letter and sending it to the CEO of Clear Channel asking for Rush to be silenced. 40 Other democrats signed the letter, making it the first time in American history that the representatives of the government tried to forcibly silence a critic of theirs through intimidation.The letter sold for $2.2 millionRush matched it and donated $4.4 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.Harry Reid went to his home in Searchlight and cried

Rush = the nuts

[akoff 0]

Rush's reply to Byron YorkeThere are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

[85suited 0]

One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.Flying in a private jet does more than four times the carbon emission damage to the environment than flying a regular commercial jet. Sit in coach, you might save a polar bear

[hblask 1]

Jan 26: The economic ignorance begins with Obama's announcement about raising fuel efficiency standards. Apparently, Obama has never heard of the concept of unintended consequences. See, what happens is it drives up the cost of cars, making people hold on to their old polluting beaters for longer.This experiment has already been tried, and it doesn't work.-1

[vbnautilus 48]

Jan 26: The economic ignorance begins with Obama's announcement about raising fuel efficiency standards. Apparently, Obama has never heard of the concept of unintended consequences. See, what happens is it drives up the cost of cars, making people hold on to their old polluting beaters for longer.This experiment has already been tried, and it doesn't work.-1

Hang on now, isn't the proposal is to allow states to set higher standards if they choose to? Doesn't that fall into the category of moving power towards the local? I'm surprised that you wouldn't like that one.

[hblask 1]

Hang on now, isn't the proposal is to allow states to set higher standards if they choose to? Doesn't that fall into the category of moving power towards the local? I'm surprised that you wouldn't like that one.

You're correct, and that was my initial reaction. I think it is better that each state set their own standards. But I gave it a negative because there were actually two parts, and the second part was to start enforcing the federal standards that Bush said no to.I hope I'm not misreading the story, but it looked like two actions: let CA create their own standards, and enforce harsher federal standards. Knowing CA, both parts will turn out poorly.

[El Guapo 8]

You're correct, and that was my initial reaction. I think it is better that each state set their own standards. But I gave it a negative because there were actually two parts, and the second part was to start enforcing the federal standards that Bush said no to.I hope I'm not misreading the story, but it looked like two actions: let CA create their own standards, and enforce harsher federal standards. Knowing CA, both parts will turn out poorly.

The thing is that this will force the auto manufacturers to either create them all on the CA standard, because we by far have the most vehicles, or produce two emission systems for each car. Neither will be cost effective.

[Balloon guy 158]

The thing is that this will force the auto manufacturers to either create them all on the CA standard, because we by far have the most vehicles, or produce two emission systems for each car. Neither will be cost effective.

Will California be allowed to deny entry of cars set to Idaho's standards?If not than look for the Idahoian Mail Boxes Etc. stores to expand their PO Boxes

[hblask 1]

Will California be allowed to deny entry of cars set to Idaho's standards?

When I moved there for my stay in the 90s, they penalized you for bringing in a car that didn't have a CA emission sticker. It didn't matter if you passed the smog test with flying colors, you still have to pay a $350 fine per car. So they are happy to allow cars from other states so that they can blow it on corporate handouts.

[hblask 1]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/cam...hics/index.htmlSo much for a positive rating on THAT one.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Good. Then perhaps you would be willing to pit your solid comprehension of real-world goings on against my disconnection with a little wager. We can post with a neutral 3rd party.You bet that anyone from the Bush crew will be tried for war crimes.I bet that no one from the administration will be tried for war crimes.I will lay you 6-1- minimum bet $100- and we can set up some sort of a time frame. Now, I can't forecast what your excuse will be for not taking the bet (I will make side action on that too), but if I'm wrong and you sincerely believe that you're correct and firmly grasping reality- that there is indeed a realistic chance of this happening- then surely one parallel universe in five would indict them in a court of law, so I'm giving you a +ev situation to prove that you sincerely believe in what you're saying, as opposed to being a typical delusionaly idealistic leftist retard prattling a bunch of pie-eyed nonsense that has no application whatsoever to the real world, even though you insist that it does. Time to put your money where your mouth is, Corky.

A couple questions.. the first, what do you mean by Tried? Because, I mean, Kissenger was tried for war crimes, but he didn't exactly show up for the trial. And it was like 30 years after the fact, so the time frame of this bet, given historical precedent, would have to be pretty long. Second of all, what do you mean, exactly, by Bushes "Crew?" Like cabinet members only, or extended bush appointees? Would generals count? This wager sounds too abstract, and I think is just an attempt to shut someone up.

[Mercury69 3]

Apprently you guys are ****ed regardless of who is in office. Bye bye, Miss American Pie...

[Jeepster80125 0]

can anyone here actually tell me why bush shouldnt be considered a war criminal if it has been established that his administration used waterboarding along with extended amounts of other "legal" forms of torture on detainees who had not been convicted or even charged of any crime?

Good. Then perhaps you would be willing to pit your solid comprehension of real-world goings on against my disconnection with a little wager. We can post with a neutral 3rd party.You bet that anyone from the Bush crew will be tried for war crimes.I bet that no one from the administration will be tried for war crimes.I will lay you 6-1- minimum bet $100- and we can set up some sort of a time frame. Now, I can't forecast what your excuse will be for not taking the bet (I will make side action on that too), but if I'm wrong and you sincerely believe that you're correct and firmly grasping reality- that there is indeed a realistic chance of this happening- then surely one parallel universe in five would indict them in a court of law, so I'm giving you a +ev situation to prove that you sincerely believe in what you're saying, as opposed to being a typical delusionaly idealistic leftist retard prattling a bunch of pie-eyed nonsense that has no application whatsoever to the real world, even though you insist that it does. Time to put your money where your mouth is, Corky.

This poster (DonG) would rather stick his head in these threads, post some insults about the right, and leave without defending himself or his arguments, rather than participate in a discussion. I'm certain he's a moron and too scared to engage anyone who he thinks might be smarter than him, which is pretty much everyone.I wish he'd put his money where his mouth is, but it's not likely. Don't hold your breath scram.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/cam...hics/index.htmlSo much for a positive rating on THAT one.

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't CNN a liberal bastion of leftist leaning reporters?And even they are noticing this?hmmm, must be a sad day at CNNLuckily there's always PMSNBC to cover for the Dems

[El Guapo 8]

Yesterday we had an annual review with a client we had not seen since early last year and she immediately starts talking about Obama. To paint a little bit of a picture, the county I work in is the most republican county in all of California. I think the population is 95% white, and most of our clients are 55 or older. This lady starts crooning over Obama, I am not using crooning as hyperbole either, she was clutching her hands to her chest smiling and looking UP as she praised the messiah Obama. Her words, not mine. She repeatedly said how much they love him and how he is going to save all of us and how she loves this stimulus package. It was, to say the least, a very bizarre start to a meeting. Luckily my colleague changed the topic quickly after that.

[akoff 0]

Yesterday we had an annual review with a client we had not seen since early last year and she immediately starts talking about Obama. To paint a little bit of a picture, the county I work in is the most republican county in all of California. I think the population is 95% white, and most of our clients are 55 or older. This lady starts crooning over Obama, I am not using crooning as hyperbole either, she was clutching her hands to her chest smiling and looking UP as she praised the messiah Obama. Her words, not mine. She repeatedly said how much they love him and how he is going to save all of us and how she loves this stimulus package. It was, to say the least, a very bizarre start to a meeting. Luckily my colleague changed the topic quickly after that.

Yea uhm....you may not want to discuss that topic with her! When sitting with clients and polotics comes up remain semi quiet, smell which way the they are going and nod your head as you agree with every stupid thing they say....then proceed to the bank, cash check and go be back to your office and take a shower...that my friend is being bipartisan!!!!