Republican House Whip Eric Cantor compares Obama to Putin
 

Sometimes the republitards make me LOL.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D98OOJDO2.htm

I guess he forgot those decisions were made in bankruptcy court and upheld by a Supreme Court that leans 5-4 in favor of conservatives.


Yeah, that's the first thing I think when I see a President with a 65% plus approval rating. "His agenda is unraveling and the voters will want to reign him in" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I wonder if these guys actually believe half of the bullshit they spew?

Either way next year the checks and balances will be back in place...

So obama better get his fix or fuck up things he wants too soon before he has to play real politics when he can't just rush shit through both houses.

Obama will truly be the "transformative leader" he is hyped up to be if the Dems retain solid control next year. That will break all sorts of historical precedents/patterns. It will truly be the culmination of the "liberalization of America" that a guest researcher on NPR was discussing around 9 years ago. I forgot his name but he mentioned that demographic changes in the US's exurbs and suburbs indicate a leftward swing that will last at least 20 years.

That seems quite unfair to Putin who is autocratic but extremely competent while Obama is both autocratic and extremely incompetent.

Obama's shameful maneuvering to hand over ownership of Chrysler and GM to his political cronies is straight out to Putin's playbook however.

They both love their cheesy photo ops too. Obama wants to be photographed eating hamburgers and Putin wants to be photographed taming tigers.

If the shoe fits...

He's playing real politics now. Or have you not seem him reaching out to republicans even though he doesn't have to?

Case in point, on health care, he said he'd rather get 85% of what he wants in a bipartisan bill than get 100% of what he wants with only 51 votes.

That's something neither of our last two Presidents would have ever dreamed of saying.

The demographics are in favor of the Dems, as are the particular seats that are up for election in the Senate in 2010.

Demographics favor Republicans in the Senate in 2012, but if Obama is steamrolling towards re-election at that point, he'll have some pretty long coattails.

The republicans "might" gain some seats in the house in 2010, but mostly because alot of weirdos got swept in on the Obama wave in 2008, and they'll get swept back out in 2010. A similar thing happened in 1982 (in the house) and 1986 (in the Senate) with alot of people who were swept in on Reagan's coattails. Either way though, they'd have to net over 40 seats to take back control of the house (by 1 vote). There would have to be huge voter dissatisfaction for the country as a whole to turn back to the party they just threw out in the last 2 elections.

Bottom line though is that success breeds success. If Clinton hadn't gotten sucked into playing the "don't ask don't tell" game right off the bat, and hadn't drowned in his own health care initiative, the 1994 Republican revolution wouldn't have happened IMHO.

Obama, so far, seems to be a much more shrewd and disciplined operator than Clinton was early on.

Says the guy who thinks Glenn Beck is "a breath of fresh air".

Bush looked into Putin's shoe, and he saw his soul.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BpDNdb-o2M...Picture+12.png

Cantor's been a joke since day one :1orglaugh

Obama can only be compared to God.

I read a similar thing. As more and more companies leave big cities for smaller towns and more and more people either commute or telecommute and move out of the big cities we are seeing shift in rural politics. Areas that were always republican are now sudden flush with new liberals. The big thing that the democrats will be doing is the census followed by the redistricting afterward. The republicans were in power for the last one and it helped them tremendously in some states so you know the democrats will return the favor. If Obama does well and you factor in the shift in where people live and the redistricting we could see democrats in power for many years to come.

Then again they could do exactly what the republicans did which is get power then get bloated and corrupt and screw things up to the point that they are all thrown out of office.

It is good that he is saying this, but I will wait to see if he actually does this.



I still think the republican revolution would have happened. The one thing that Clinton really had going against him was that things were good. When things are good and the economy is chugging along and we are not involved in a war suddenly people start worrying about other things. If you noticed in this last election try as they might the republicans just couldn't make social issues a hot button topic for most people. When people are worried about their jobs and their livelihoods and their kids who are off fighting in Iraq they are less worried about gays getting married, who is fucking who and playing the morality police. Things were pretty good under Clinton which gave people a lot of time to look at him with disgust because he cheated on his wife and it allowed the republicans to focus on the moral and social issues they love. I think even if he would have passed health care and he stayed away from the don't ask don't tell game it would have still happened. He might have done some good things, but he got a blowjob from another woman and some people cannot forgive that.

Some of the republicans are trying right now to reignite the culture war with little result because right now people have other things on their mind. But if 5-6 years from now things are good and the economy is strong and we have the wars under control you can bet social issues will be front and center once again.

Putin Car :D

Oh yes, because an approval rating 6 months into the presidency while not doing a single thing yet REALLY means a lot. Come back in a year.

Seeing as how they spew only half the bullshit liberals spew, I think not.

Transformative leader? ROFL. You mean like speeding up the process of economic collapse with his hilarious fiscal policies?

You DO know the Democrats do the same thing right? Do you ALSO know that it was Clinton that started the downward spiral towards economic collapse right? I didn't think so.

The other factor is just demographics in general. If the electorate had the same ethnic makeup in 1980 as it did in 2008, Reagan would have lost by a healthy margin.

In 1980 the electorate was 88% white, in 2008 it was only 74% white. The more the republicans try to ignite the "culture wars" the more they drive away minority voters.
Nixon's "silent majority" doesn't exist anymore. They're now a minority and loud as hell, and their numbers are shrinking every year.


I agree about the bloated/corrupt thing. I hope that doesn't happen. I'm a big believer in term limits and public financing of campaigns....but since that's not going to happen anytime soon (if ever) I just have to hope the legislative branch fights to keep it's independence from the executive instead of them basically being the same thing the way they were from 2000-2006. :2 cents:

:thumbsup :1orglaugh

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress...cuss-ideas.jpg

http://eehard.files.wordpress.com/20..._mister_no.jpg

ADG

That is true the general demographic and ethnic makeup of the country is changing. Also I think we are seeing more and more younger voters who are less effected by social politics. I saw a poll a few weeks ago about gay marriage. They broke it down by age group. As you would assume older people (mostly 50+) were pretty strongly opposed to gay marriage, but as the groupings got younger the approval rating of it went up. The group that was 15-18 year olds had a huge approval rating for gay marriage. Sure, when those voters get into their 40's they may change their views, but over the next 3-5 years will will still be more socially liberal.

What is helping the democrats most is that after the defeats of the last two years the republican party is left in shambles and is fighting among itself to find an identity. If they want to start winning elections they will have to come to some kind of common ground again and that doesn't see likely to happen for a little while.

It has been the early to mid 60's then again in the later part of the 70's since the democrats controlled both the house and senate as well as the white house (although they did have for a short time right after Clinton was elected too) and you could argue that the got bloated and corrupt. When I made my statement it was not meant as saying the democrats are better or that they are above that, it was simply a statement that when the republicans last had all the power they squandered it and I am hoping the democrats don't do that this time around. I guess time will tell.

As for Clinton starting the downward spiral he does play a roll in it, but so do many republicans. I actually just read a big article about Clinton and in it he responds to the critics about his roll in the economic meltdown. He takes the blame for signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act which allowed for regular banks to act like investment banks. This allowed them to start buying and selling off these sub prime mortgages and overextending themselves with un-backed investments. He also says that he should take some of the blame for allowing Greenspan to convince him not to regulate derivative investments. He claims that Greenspan told him that they wouldn't be a major player so there was no need to regulate them. He now says had he know that Bush was basically going to neuter the SEC for 8 years and that derivatives would run wild and cause all kinds of chaos he would have done more about it. I guess hindsight is always 20/20.

So for sure he is to take some of the blame, but you can't lay it all at his feet. There is plenty of blame to go around and he is one of the people on the list.

By no means am I saying that the Republicans are absolved from responsibility. However, it's a response to most uneducated uninformed liberals who say Bush fucked everything up. Bush definitely had a hand in it but Obama is going at speeds Bush didn't even have, and it started with Clinton removing the cap from bank loans, which was placed by FDR and for good reason.

The blame goes to both parties.

I don't think their views on gay marriage will change when they're in their 40's. I just think that people currently in their 40's have different views today because they grew up in a different era.
Just like my parents used the N word on a regular basis even though they really didn't dislike people of that race. It's just the era they grew up in.


I agree with you about the republicans. Their biggest problem is that they didn't stick to their principles when they were in power.
The congress gave Dubya everything he wanted, and Dubya never vetoed any of the pork and other waste that congress wanted to bring home to keep getting re-elected....so now, when they talk about smaller government and fiscal discipline, they look like idiots.

Sadly, the only thing they can really hope for, is that the economy continues to get worse so that they can make gains in 2010.
Otherwise, they're pretty much in the wilderness until 2014 or so.

In the meantime, I can only hope that people like Cantor keep doing stupid shit like comparing Obama to Putin, and that people like Rush Limbaugh continue to be the face of the republican party. If this keeps up the Dems will be looking at 62-65 Senate seats in 2010.

Then it's look out Sweden here we come. :1orglaugh

The Demon
This message is hidden because The Demon is on your ignore list.


I can only imagine that you're telling me that you're owning me right now. Keep it up brah. :thumbsup

Obama is the Black Jesus and his mom slept with Mohamed

Both parties, in my opinion, share the blame equally along with greedy bankers, stupid buyers and greedy CEO's.

Clinton did help remove the cap on bank loans. If I understand correctly that was part of the bill put forth by Gramm. Clinton signed the bill, but it was passed by a republican house and senate. So everyone involved has to shoulder the blame.

Obama is going at a quick rate but you could argue it is because he is trying to deal with a landslide that has been slowly building for years and just now hit avalanche status. I don't know if everything Obama is doing is good. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. I'm not one of those people who will insist that his actions will cause us to head into an unprecedented economic collapse, nor am I someone who thinks his actions will save the nation. In the end I think the nation saves itself and the leader will take the credit.

One of my favorite moments during the election was when Huckabee went on the Daily Show and was trying to convince John Stewart that the republicans were the party to fix all the problems we have. Stewart says to him, "So you are saying to the people 'We are the party to fix what our party screwed up'?" and Huckabee just kind of laughed and went, "well, yeah." It was classic.

I agree with the first part.

I think one of the biggest things working in Obama's favor is that he hasn't been in Washington very long, and by virtue of that alone hasn't been sucked into that whole power and corruption game.

He's also not married to the Clinton administration and doesn't have to defend their policies or carry around their baggage either.

He's in a unique position to fix alot of problems because nobody can blame him for causing them, or working for the people who caused them, or whatever.

I also think he's moving at a quick pace because he can. Like Rahm Emanuel said, you don't want to let a crisis go to waste.
If you slow down and allow bills to die in committee or let things get picked apart on the Sunday shows for months on end, to where you drown in the minutiae, you'll never get anything done. He knows he'll never have more influence over congress and with the American people than right now, so props to him for aiming high and not settling for this incremental change-without-changing bullshit that we usually get out of Washington.

What Obama is doing is speeding up the process towards economic collapse. Printing more and more money doesn't equate to economic stability. Continuing to bailout these big companies, rather than letting them die out in order for smaller ones to grow, doesn't equate to economic stability. Nationalizing healthcare, while sounding great on the outside, is going to fail in this country.

Hasn't been sucked into corruption? You mean aside from pledging to do A, B, and C just to get elected, only to not do it once he became president? Hmmm

I agree with you that the health care issue is a big on in this country. I think we will have some form of national health care - if only because they are determined to make it happen. What form it takes is yet to be seen. I personally think we will end up with some kind of government ran insurance program that anyone can get on and how much you pay is determined by your income level. So someone with an average income level will pay an average price while someone who is very poor will get it for free. The big question is how will this be paid for and will it work worth a damn?

Printing more and more money is not a great idea, but I have said time and again that the situation we are faced with sucks no matter what you do. If you don't bail out anything and just let anything that would fail on its own fail we could easily see 20-30% unemployment and maybe 60-70% of the banks in this country fail. That would have happened almost overnight and would have caused an enormous panic. So then you have to choose to either let it all fail and deal with the panic and unemployment and all the issues that occur (locked credit markets, people so spooked they aren't spending a dime, people running to the bank and taking out all their money causing more banks to fail etc.) while things rebuild on their own or you spend money and save some things, change some things and help people keep working then you figure out how to deal with the debt down the road. Neither way is perfect.

While he isn't married to the Clintons about 40% of his staff is made up of people that worked for the Clinton administration in some capacity so he is still connected to them in a way. I don't know that he is free of the corruption that comes with Washington. I have said for a long time anyone who is in a legit position to win the white house owes that to someone or something. I'm not saying he is in someone's pocket, but there are people that helped him get where he is right now and they want something in return. What that is I have no idea.

One thing is for sure. He does get the opportunity to come in with a pretty clean slate. The republicans are taking the brunt of the blame for the troubles this country is facing so he can come in and do what he wants without having the albatross of the failed previous administration on his back. He is spending money as fast as we can print it, I just hope he has some kind of plan on how to pay all this back. I don't want to have to go get my "Speaking Chinese for Dummies" book just yet.