Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obama tells powerful lobbies: Bring it on

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Feb 28, 2009.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    This could be an epic battle.

    The Dems control Congress and Obama has a brilliant political team, but the Republicans and their business allies are very strong. I think the problem for the Republicans is twofold: (1) The Obama team knows more about Rovian tactics and strtaegy than the Republicans known about Axelrodian tactics and strategy; (2) Religious conservatives are probably not going to be as active on economic issues as they were on so-called family values issues.

    Obama tells powerful lobbies: Bring it on

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.

    "The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."

    He said his ambitious budget plan, unveiled Thursday, will help millions of Americans, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.

    "I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2009
  2. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I don't know how you can trust Obama's words? :confused: The guy talks from both sides of his mouth.

    He wanted balanced budget, but after proposing the biggest budget deficit.

    He wanted "less government", but after proposing more government bureacracy (auto czar, anyone?)

    He uneuquivocally promised the unconditional withdrawal of all troops in Iraq by 2009 (in order to get YOUR vote), but now it is a partial withdrawal in 2010 (or is it 2011?).

    He is against lobbyist, but he nominated lobbyist Tom Daschle to be his commerce secretary.

    .
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    We have not had a Democratic leader as honest and bold as Obama since Kennedy.

    I don't think he ever said the solution to our economic problems was to balance the budget. His programs always called for deficits.

    I don't think he ever called for less government, though he did call for better managed, more responsible government.

    He promised to remove the troops from Iraq in 16 months. Instead he's ending combat in that time frame, and bringing home around 2/3rds of the troops. He didn't live up to his campaign promise, but he's certainly taking a giant step in that direction.

    He is against lobbyists, but stated from the start that he would make some exceptions. Daschle was a bad choice on his part, worse than many of us expected.
  4. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I am shocked that you put Obama and Kennedy in the same sentence.

    I am just as equally shocked that you disregarded the 8 years of unprecedented peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton.

    A grown man like you should stop harboring a teenage infatuation with Barrack Obama.

    .
  5. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    This is great news, and I am glad to hear Obama is going to stand up to some of the most influential lobbies in the US like labor unions...

    He IS going to stand up to them too, right? Right? Anyone?

    Also Patters, calling Obama's political team brilliant after the number of missteps they've made in just over a month is laughable. The man is smart, his team has been I'd say barely competent at best.
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Oh, Clinton was an excellent president, but he wasn't particularly honest and he did not have the conditions before him that allowed him to be particularly bold. Clinton filled a different role than Kennedy or Roosevelt or Obama, and I don't think any Democrat could have done better than him given the power of the right wing and the contentment with the status quo of the American people. I'm not infatuated with Obama (his handling of Iraq leaves much to be desired), but I'm very happy with him. I think realistically, he's about as politically good as the Democrats are going to get, and his general philosophy seems to be in keeping with Roosevelt and Kennedy liberalism.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Stokes, unions have been battered by the Republicans for around 25 years creating a terrible inequality between shareholders and employees. I expect Obama to mostly support unions and criticize corporations in order to restore a balance.

    I think pushing through a $800 billion stimulus package and maintaining a 67% approval rating is quite a feat. They have made a few minor missteps, but they are still getting what they want. I think I measure their ability by their accomplishments and, whether you agree with them or not, so far they've been running the show.
  8. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Seeing as how that stimulus bill was largely crafted by congressional democrats and not Obama I'd say Congress has been running the show and the administration is along for the ride. Then you look at their selections for cabinet posts, the census fiasco, Eric Holder making an abhorrent comment in a speech, and I just can't see how we could think his people are serving him well at this point. His approval numbers come from his charisma and his honeymoon period, not because the people around him have been picking him up. If anything he's shown himself particularly adept at going around putting out the fires that THEY are setting!

    You think the UAW has been "battered" by us mean old Republicans? Police unions? Attorneys? I'm just pointing out that Obama is not telling "powerful lobbies" bring it on, he's picking only the powerful lobbies he doesn't like to challenge to wage class warfare. That's fine, he's free to choose who should get the short end of the stick, but let's not make it out like he's really doing business any different than his predecessors, he's still picking on some groups and giving others a free pass, its just that he's changed around which groups get shat on.
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Obama's approach with the stimulus from the start was to let Congress play a big role, but the priorities (energy, health care, etc.) and the proportion of taxes and spending were almost exactly what he requested. I'm not sure what census "fiasco" you're talking about, and Eric Holder did not make an abhorrent comment, but his choice of words could have been better. (The truth is that we don't talk about race issues honestly; I don't think that is cowardice, but it's certainly a legitimate issue.)

    A few unions have done well, but in general unions have declined sharply and workers lives have not improved sharply. The work week is still 35-40 hours; people still get far less vacation than in other countries; bringing harassment and discrimination charges against an employer has become more difficult; etc. I think the only general gain for workers since 1980 was Clinton's family leave act. Minimum wage, worker protection, etc. all came about prior to that.

    Of course Obama is taking care of those groups he believes its important to take care of. As I pointed out elsewhere, just a Republicans took care of investors and religious folk, Obama is taking care of working people and the underprivileged, but it's not politics. It's what he believes. You might really believe its class warfare, and Republican efforts to reduce aid to the needy as something other than class warfare, but I see the bandying about of words like class warfare or handouts or socialism as superficial efforts to manipulate the discussion.
  10. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    As we discussed in another thread I've got no problem with Obama doing so, but its silliness to pretend he's changing the way things are done in Washington. Recognizing that a few powerful groups have undue influence in Washington and going after them all would be a change (and a welcome one at that). Going after some and granting favor to the others is the way its always been done, just with the haves and have-nots flipped.

    My problem is not with Obama's actions, its with the insinuation that he's changing the way Washington works.

    I think both examples you give are class warfare, and if you think about it pretty striking in their similarity. The right demonizes the welfare cheats, the left demonizes the greedy corporate raiders. In both cases the minority, extreme cases of a much larger group are used to demonize the group as a whole and win votes with average Americans.
  11. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    couple of other comments:

    1. I probably wouldn't have used the grueling 35-40 hour workweek as an example of the poor treatment of labor in this country.:D

    2. Holder's comments were pretty damn bad. I can understand his message, that we are still uncomfortable talking about race honestly, but you can't throw out the "cowards" line or this beauty and expect people to take you seriously:

    "On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. "

    Or maybe he's right, maybe on Sundays he rides to church in the back of the bus, is refused service trying to buy lunch, drinks from the "black" water fountain, avoids the rocks being thrown at him by the guys shouting ""n***er go home!" and ends his evening admiring the cross burning outside his house and the dummy painted in blackface hanging from his oak tree.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I never said he's changing the way Washington works. I think Washington has worked roughly the same since 1800 or before.

    He's doing a few small things: more transparency, eliminating some accounting gimmicks, meeting with the opposition -- at the very least that's a change from the last 8 years.

    I agree with that, but it's the way politics are played.
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,340
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +250 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    You haven't figured out that Obama is just a pretender ? He's a joke. He talks about fiscal responsibility then takes it up the ass from Nancy. He talks about the $1T debt that he inherited - which he has doubled. He talked about the changes he'd bring and nominates the most shady cabinet ever. Obama talks a good game but when he walks out on the field there is no game.

    Obama = Pac Man Jones.
  14. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,785
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +77 / 5 / -7

    #37 Jersey

    The AFL-CIO is the new boss in the Obama administration. "Change we can believe in."

    $21.00/HR for a toll taker:rofl:
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,845
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    Did he create this?? Or is this from some partisan blog, rightwingbull****talkingpointoftheday.com... see pelosilovesmice.com or highspeedrailfromlatovegas.com
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    What does fiscal responsibility have to do with spending? Spending can be responsible, and in Obma's case he's relying on a Keynsian model and looking to the fact that only the massive spending of WWII finally ended the Great Depression. As a % of GDP, Obama is spending far less than we spent on WWII, so he's looking at the situation in a rational way. You might be against how he's spending or be against spending at all, but that's just a philosophical or economic disagreement. Even Reagan and Bush understood the importance of deficit spending when our economy as in recession, but did you call them preterenders? Or did you not care about their spending because they were not using the money to help Americans, but using it to "help" the Granadans, the Nicaraguans, the Iraqis, and Afghanis.

    Well, he did inherited that debt, which is putting even more pressure on our economy.

    What's shady about them? Except for Daschle, I'm not sure what's shady about them.

    Oh, boy, even when making analogies, you have so much difficulty looking past the color of one's skin.
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,340
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +250 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    LMAO.

    How many have tax problems ? Including the Treasury Secretary. Geihtner should have been pushed to the sidewalk.

    Or - maybe this is a football forum and most football players are black. Ever think of that, genius ?
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,586
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +113 / 7 / -10

    Standing up against powerful special interest groups????????

    This is laughable, he has huge majorities in both houses of congress and ineffective pubbie opposition. Is he saying that dem congresspeople are corrupt pols who are driven by the 'special interest'? After all they can put through any budget they like.
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    It's funny to see Patters bringing up "% of GDP" in order to defend outrageous spending. Patsfans13 used to mention % of GDP when talking about GW's outrageous spending, when Patters would criticize it. Meet the new people, same as the old people.

    It's so funny to see people who defend what they previously criticized, and criticize what they previously defended. This goes for all of us BTW. We're all guilty to varying degrees.
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    You got it wrong because you read what you wanted to. I never objected to deficit spending, just pointed out the hypocrisy of the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans. Sadly, they are only conservatives with deficits when they're used to help Americans. They're all for deficits to "help" Iraqis and Iranians. But, the fact is that the deficit spending model has really served us quite well since the 1930s. Prior to that we had many more recessions than we've had since. The reason for the current crisis is not deficit spending; it's lack of regulation, something for which Reaganomics gets the most credit.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>