TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama Administration Winging It?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama Administration Winging It?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500260310017735.html

Great article
post #2 of 27
Wow. I didn't know that Karl Rowe was working for the WSJ. Hmm. Now normally I would read and try to be fair on links for our discussions. But frankly I would rather poke my eyes out than read anything from Karl Rowe. And even if I did I wouldn't be able to be objective on a thing that man said. And frankly I doubt he could be objective to Obama or any democrat.
post #3 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by peachytoday View Post
Wow. I didn't know that Karl Rowe was working for the WSJ. Hmm. Now normally I would read and try to be fair on links for our discussions. But frankly I would rather poke my eyes out than read anything from Karl Rowe. And even if I did I wouldn't be able to be objective on a thing that man said. And frankly I doubt he could be objective to Obama or any democrat.
Precisely what went through my mind, but I thought I'd let an American say it first.
post #4 of 27
OK, let's try a little intellectual exercise.

But first, let's note that Karl's last name is Rove, not Rowe.

Let's replace each instance of "Karl Rove" with "George Stephanopoulus." And every instance of "WSJ" with "ABC." And every instance of "Obama" with "Bush." And every "democrat" with "republican." Now...how do you feel about your statement? Does it still make sense to you? Do you get a little feeling of the loathing the right had for George, and anything he did at ABC?

-------------------------
"Wow. I didn't know that George Stephanopoulos was working for ABC. Hmm. Now normally I would read and try to be fair on links for our discussions. But frankly I would rather poke my eyes out than read anything from George Stephanopoulos. And even if I did I wouldn't be able to be objective on a thing that man said. And frankly I doubt he could be objective to Bush or any republican.
---------------------------

Now, continue it a little farther. If you exchange "Karl Rove" for every mention of "Rahm Emanuel," and vice versa, over the coming years, you may begin to get a glimpse of how those on the right have felt. Maybe you'll get just an inkling of the firestorm over Obama's move to put the census under the control of Emanuel.

Interesting exercise, huh?
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
OK, let's try a little intellectual exercise.

But first, let's note that Karl's last name is Rove, not Rowe.

Let's replace each instance of "Karl Rove" with "George Stephanopoulus." And every instance of "WSJ" with "ABC." And every instance of "Obama" with "Bush." And every "democrat" with "republican." Now...how do you feel about your statement? Does it still make sense to you? Do you get a little feeling of the loathing the right had for George, and anything he did at ABC?

-------------------------
"Wow. I didn't know that George Stephanopoulos was working for ABC. Hmm. Now normally I would read and try to be fair on links for our discussions. But frankly I would rather poke my eyes out than read anything from George Stephanopoulos. And even if I did I wouldn't be able to be objective on a thing that man said. And frankly I doubt he could be objective to Bush or any republican.
---------------------------

Now, continue it a little farther. If you exchange "Karl Rove" for every mention of "Rahm Emanuel," and vice versa, over the coming years, you may begin to get a glimpse of how those on the right have felt. Maybe you'll get just an inkling of the firestorm over Obama's move to put the census under the control of Emanuel.

Interesting exercise, huh?
First I like the Wall Street Journal so I don't care if you switch with ABC my comment was just I didn't know he was working for him. And frankly I wouldn't care if the right changed Rahm Emanuel for Rove. So I stand by my statement. And I don't think Stephanopoulos or Emanuel has reach the Rovian standard of underhandedness yet. They might. But no where near close yet. And until they tell Congress that they won't answer a subpeona basically thumbing their noses at our judicial system and refusing to tell the truth they won't get to his level. And trust me you on the right with your Messiah comments and nit picking are already doing it to Obama. Besides I don't care if you like Stephanoupolous or Emanuel, I am not to keen on them either sometimes.

And no I don't get the firestorm over Obama's move to put the census under Rahm Emanuel's control.

BTW - Sorry I mispelled Roves name.
post #6 of 27
So your answer is, "No, I can't do that intellectual exercise."

When we're talking about the right, we're not talking about me, by the way. I'm an independent, and I have spent plenty of time defending Obama, so you're barking up the wrong tree here. My point was that this is a 50/50 country, more or less, and every person you see as evil, someone else sees as a hero, and the sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner we can get to working together.
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
It is a good article. However, if you take out the current events references, you can put the name of any President we've ever had in there and it still be fairly true.

Well, except for Harrison...he didn't live long enough to wing anything.
post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
So your answer is, "No, I can't do that intellectual exercise."

When we're talking about the right, we're not talking about me, by the way. I'm an independent, and I have spent plenty of time defending Obama, so you're barking up the wrong tree here. My point was that this is a 50/50 country, more or less, and every person you see as evil, someone else sees as a hero, and the sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner we can get to working together.
Umm. No, I took that excercise and said it did not bother me if you changed the names. I cannot be objective with Rove. I think the only difference between me and other people is that I am honest about it. Almost anyone else I could be objective. Sorry if my honesty offends you but there it is.
post #9 of 27
Thread Starter 
Thanks Skippy.


mrblanche, don't worry I didn't really think the many left leaning people here would be tolerant enough to get past the name and actually read the article.
Mostly, it just confirmed my suspicions. No worries.
post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
mrblanche, don't worry I didn't really think the many left leaning people here would be tolerant enough to get past the name and actually read the article.
Mostly, it just confirmed my suspicions. No worries.
Just curious, I know you had to know that the very name brings a bad taste in the mouth to some as you say here. Then why did you post it here? There are plenty of other articles by people that say the same thing that would get your point across. That is if you really wanted a discussion of all people. Or was it just to get a reaction.
post #11 of 27
Just curious... Four years from now, if the political pendulum swings the other way, would you advocate banning anything the two gentlemen I mentioned being linked here?
post #12 of 27
Thread Starter 
I think what was said in the article was spot on. DOesn't matter who said it IMO. Besides I dare say Karl Rove has more more political savvy in his little finger than most posters on this board. I happen to like Karl Rove and always have. I posted the article because I liked what he said.
post #13 of 27
The article cracked me up!!! From the "TeamBush" who gave us a recession that is now entering it's 14th month!! From the man who refuses to obey a congressional subpena
Yes, it's difficult for me to take seriously an article that has to use buzz words like "Team Obama" - it sets a condescending tone that I find distasteful.
And, no, I've never thought that President Obama was "The One" like it's implied that anyone who voted for him was just a starstruck zealot who'd been "puppeteered". I just spent months & months studying what I could, with information that I could find, including alternative media.
How many people here who want to criticize the President bothered to watch the movie "Time Bomb"? It was released in 2005, then again in 2008....the accuracies of the predictions were sadly too true. But if those experts saw this economic meltdown coming, why didn't those is power listen more???
post #14 of 27
Thread Starter 
I was under the impression that Obama does have a team?
Doesn't he? What is distasteful about saying "team Obama"?

This recession and everything connected to it is a bi-partisan failing of all our politicians. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

And I do think Team Obama is "winging" it.
post #15 of 27
I'm sure every administration has a learning curve - perhaps more of a learning curve when those with little experience are handed the reins of leadership.

When Obama was elected - with a helpful Media - I told my husband, okay, let's see how long it takes the (liberal) Media to stop supporting this administration. I liken the fickle Media to sharks (well, kinda) - waiting to go on a feeding frenzy - they'll get bored and start looking for fresh blood, and then start looking for cracks in the man they support - they don't care, bad news sells.

I expect the conservative Media to be a on the Wall looking for chinks in the Obama Administration - that's normal - look what the (liberal) Media did with Bush - they take turns.

So, it's up to Joe and Josephine Q. Public to educate themselves and not just "go along" with the Party lines - read between the lines, and decide what to believe, and what not to believe from the slants or agendas of the Media.

Also, I sorta think that the "recession" (as some mentioned) began with 9/11 - I remember Osama Bin Laden saying something like he planned on taking down America's economy ... looks like we're on the path, and we really can't afford (no pun here) any mis-steps.
post #16 of 27
mrblanche, I got a kick out of your interesting exercise. And I agree with Skippy and others -- this is just normal-normal. Actually, if anything, so far it's going smoother than normal. Take Bill Clinton, for example, who is now revered by many as a great President, but who had an extremely rocky start, including investigations into links to a possible homicide, missing funds, health-care commission fiasco, insider trading, dismissed White House employees, White House furnishings -- I mean, it goes on and on -- and this was looooong before Monica.

Yes, if anything, Obama's getting off to a fairly smooth start. He's on his first foreign junket and hasn't riled up any friendly nations, yet. He got his major piece of legislation passed swiftly (a little too, IMO). He got the majority of his appointees in (again, that was a little too smooth). So, I dunno, I think maybe his real challenge might be coming from a totally unexpected direction.

And as to the premise of this thread: YES, all Presidents "wing it" -- it's SOP
post #17 of 27
Just read a brilliant article by Sharon Begley of Newsweek. It's titled "Why Pundits Get Things Wrong".

Karl Rove is a pundit now and...............:

Pointing out how often pundits' predictions are not only wrong but egregiously wrong—a 36,000 Dow! euphoric Iraqis welcoming American soldiers with flowers!—is like shooting fish in a barrel, except in this case the fish refuse to die. No matter how often they miss the mark, pundits just won't shut up, and I'll lay even odds that the pundits (and pollsters) who predicted a big defeat for Tzipi Livni in the Israeli elections last week didn't slink away in shame after her party outpolled all others. The fact that being chronically, 180-degrees wrong does not disqualify pundits is in large part the media's fault: cable news, talk radio and the blogosphere need all the punditry they can rustle up, track records be damned. But while we can't shut pundits up, we can identify those more likely to have an accurate crystal ball when it comes to forecasts from the effect of the stimulus bill to the likelihood of civil unrest in China. Knowing who's likely to be right comes down to something psychologists call cognitive style, and with that in mind Philip Tetlock, a research psychologist at Stanford University, would like to introduce you to foxes and hedgehogs.


Check it out: http://www.newsweek.com/id/184815

[Karl Rove is most definately a 'hedgehog' ]
post #18 of 27
On the other hand, even NPR's political people praised Rove's election night coverage for being astute, interesting, accurate, and unbiased.
post #19 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
On the other hand, even NPR's political people praised Rove's election night coverage for being astute, interesting, accurate, and unbiased.
That is high praise from NPR. He is astute.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think what was said in the article was spot on. DOesn't matter who said it IMO. Besides I dare say Karl Rove has more more political savvy in his little finger than most posters on this board. I happen to like Karl Rove and always have. I posted the article because I liked what he said.
I am not sure I agree with the statement it doesn’t matter the source as long as it is what I like to hear. (Paraphrasing) I like a lot of people also but if they are subpoena to testify before Congress I would expect them to go. I would not expect them to flaunt their expectation they are above the law. And would lose respect for them is they did. There is no executive privilege for Rove now and even if there was you still go and make that claim. To just ignore the summons as if it does not apply to you is wrong. I am not sure what there is to negotiate between him and Congress but if he is as innocent of any wrongdoing as people claim than why not testify about that under oath and get it out of the way. The fact that he is politically astute or can write well does not mitigate that.
As for the exercise of replacing Rove name with Rahm Emanuel why don’t we do this:
Rahm Emanuel reportedly circulated lies about McCains adopted daughter during the Presidential Campaign. Rahm Emanuel was reportedly behind the outing of a CIA operative. Rahm Emanuel was reportedly involved in a politically motivated prosecution of a Republican governor. Rahm Emanuel has already defied a Senate subpoena on the issue of politicized prosecutions, claiming executive privilege, and he seems intent on defying the House’s subpoena. I am sure there would be people with their opinion of him and demanding that he should testify. I doubt they would believe a word he said. And with good reason, if you ignore a subpoena there is probably something you don’t want to come out or don’t want to testify under oath about. I have a sneaking suspicion if it was Rahm Emanuel refusing to obey a summons there would be no end to the outrage and I would be including in that group. If he has nothing to hide than come forward.
But in the effort of fairness to members here I did read Rove’s article although I still will not take him as seriously as some people until he sits in front of a house panel. President Obama winging it. I don’t know if I completely agree with that statement. I think he is a very thoughtful man who has thought out what he wants to do as president whether I agree with the vision or not. What I do see is he is not doing a good job of the fine line of “too little too late†and “too much too soonâ€. It appears in the haste to get things done things are getting overlooked or not scrutinized as much as they should be. I know things are bad but we don’t want to accerbate the situation. This recession is going to last awhile, imo, it won't be solved this month or this year. Let us make sure we get it as right as it can be. I know nothing is perfect but preventable mistakes drive me crazy. The biggest thing lacking, for me, in the beginning of this presidency is the communication of how he intends to fulfill his vision of this country. Biggest disappointment is Geitner, he should have taken more time and gave some concrete direction on how the US should handle this banking fiasco.
post #21 of 27
Thread Starter 
Oh my, they aren't happy down in Phoenix.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135640
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Oh my, they aren't happy down in Phoenix.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135640
All right, now that's what I'm talking about

The only thing funny about it is, if it's proponents of Gay Marriage protesting a vote on Propositon 8, it's bad, but if it's Republicans protesting a vote on a spending bill, it's good.

Gee, the hypocrisy of it all.
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
All right, now that's what I'm talking about

The only thing funny about it is, if it's proponents of Gay Marriage protesting a vote on Propositon 8, it's bad, but if it's Republicans protesting a vote on a spending bill, it's good.

Gee, the hypocrisy of it all.
I don't see the comparison. I don't see any reports of violence or threats at the anti-stimulus rallies.
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
I don't see the comparison. I don't see any reports of violence or threats at the anti-stimulus rallies.
Oh, they will. The money isn't there yet.
post #25 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
All right, now that's what I'm talking about

The only thing funny about it is, if it's proponents of Gay Marriage protesting a vote on Propositon 8, it's bad, but if it's Republicans protesting a vote on a spending bill, it's good.

Gee, the hypocrisy of it all.
Huh? I don't believe I ever said gay marriage proponents should protest.
They can protest all they want, just like everyone else.
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Huh? I don't believe I ever said gay marriage proponents should protest.
They can protest all they want, just like everyone else.
Not you. The news site you linked. They were quite critical of the protests by the No on 8 crowd, but they seem quite jubilant about this one.
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Not you. The news site you linked. They were quite critical of the protests by the No on 8 crowd, but they seem quite jubilant about this one.
The media, like the mob, can be quite fickle. There's a vague reference to Gladiator in there somewhere.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama Administration Winging It?