PDA

View Full Version : Obama Takes Questions at GOP House Issues Conference


TwinSwords
01-30-2010, 10:18 AM
Video of the entire 90 minute event is here:

Ė Obama Takes Questions at GOP House Issues Conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY)

Q&A starts at 19:00.

The President takes questions from Republican members of the House of Representatives at the GOP House Issues Conference in Baltimore, MD. January 29, 2010.

look
01-30-2010, 10:37 AM
Well, if it isn't my fair-weather friend and defender of all that is good. Did he take them to task for not passing card check?

For the UAW, the future looks particularly bleak. Manufacturing jobs continue to shrink. New factories are mostly locating in the right-to-work South, bypassing Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states where union influence is still disproportionate to its representation of the work force.

Even in Michigan, the bluest of blue-collar states, union membership has dropped well below 20 percent, and there's a growing drumbeat to get a right-to-work proposal on the ballot as a means of improving the state's economic competitiveness.

In opinion polls, the union shares blame about equally with corporate mismanagement for the collapse of the automobile industry. Residents who never enjoyed UAW-style wages and benefits are openly resentful that the union's stubborn refusal to give back until it was too late put Michigan's economy in a tailspin.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/30/turning-cash-to-ash/?page=2

AemJeff
01-30-2010, 10:43 AM
Well, if it isn't my fair-weather friend and defender of all that is good. Did he take them to task for not passing card check?


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/30/turning-cash-to-ash/?page=2

This is a pretty good example of when ad hominem isn't a fallacy, I think. I find it hard to take any assertion about labor unions seriously, when it's been printed on the opinion pages of the Washington Times.

look
01-30-2010, 10:58 AM
This is a pretty good example of when ad hominem isn't a fallacy, I think. I find it hard to take any assertion about labor unions seriously, when it's been printed on the opinion pages of the Washington Times.Translation?

What's your take, Jeff? Will you please supply an opposing opinion or 'factual' article?

AemJeff
01-30-2010, 11:04 AM
Translation?

What's your take, Jeff? Will you please supply an opposing opinion or 'factual' article?

All I've said is I don't trust the WashTimes on this. Frankly, I don't trust them on anything at all; but, in the case of labor unions there's only one possible opinion from that source. I claim no special knowledge on this particular issue; I'm just certain that the Times is an unreliable witness.

look
01-30-2010, 11:11 AM
All I've said is I don't trust the WashTimes on this. Frankly, I don't trust them on anything at all; but, in the case of labor unions there's only one possible opinion from that source. I claim no special knowledge on this particular issue; I'm just certain that the Times is an unreliable witness.Well, Jeff, how about a brief list of sources you would feel comfortable with?

AemJeff
01-30-2010, 11:25 AM
Well, Jeff, how about a brief list of sources you would feel comfortable with?

Almost any major news source that doesn't start from a predictably partisan and demonstrably extreme point of view. Not the WSJ opinion page. Not the WashTimes opinion page. Not the Weekly Standard or or the New York Sun. Probably not the National Review or Mother Jones (Though they each have people who I'd trust on staff.) Not Air America (RIP) or any other AM radio talk source. Not Pacifica.

etc...

It's easier show some of the exceptions, if I'm going to indicate a pattern.

look
01-30-2010, 11:45 AM
Almost any major news source that doesn't start from a predictably partisan and demonstrably extreme point of view. Not the WSJ opinion page. Not the WashTimes opinion page. Not the Weekly Standard or or the New York Sun. Probably not the National Review or Mother Jones (Though they each have people who I'd trust on staff.) Not Air America (RIP) or any other AM radio talk source. Not Pacifica.

etc...

It's easier show some of the exceptions, if I'm going to indicate a pattern.Thank you.

claymisher
01-30-2010, 03:13 PM
Watch the whole thing. It's a hoot.

claymisher
01-30-2010, 03:40 PM
It's surprising how much Republicans were in the Fox News bubble: the old talking points, tax cuts uber alles, saying "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," the whining about mean old Nancy Pelosi ignoring their ideas, the casual bullshitting on basic facts (Obama increased the deficit by a factor of 12, the Republican hcr plan costs nothing), etc. That schtick only works in the wingnut bubble. You take it out and it collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

bjkeefe
01-30-2010, 03:47 PM
It's surprising how much Republicans were in the Fox News bubble: the old talking points, tax cuts uber alles, saying "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," the whining about mean old Nancy Pelosi ignoring their ideas, the casual bullshitting on basic facts (Obama increased the deficit by a factor of 12, the Republican hcr plan costs nothing), etc. That schtick only works in the wingnut bubble. You take it out and it collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

On a related note (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/28043.html):

We Have A Winner
Posted at 15:46 by D. Aristophanes

The best backwards math so far on Obamaís Question Time (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/28040.html) comes from a commenter over at Gateway Pundit (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/obama-defends-failed-stimulus-plan-at-gop-house-members-retreat-video/#comment-55556). Címon down, Sandy:

How come I have not seen anything about Obama at the GOP Retreat on OíReilly or Hannity tonight? Maybe Obama was so over the top that to comment on this would make him look unstable.

Yes, that must have been why.

bjkeefe
01-30-2010, 04:49 PM
Watch the whole thing. It's a hoot.

Sounds like. And I think it will do wonders for TRANSPARENCY!!!1! (http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2010/01/heh-2.html).

Ocean
01-30-2010, 05:25 PM
Watch the whole thing. It's a hoot.

I just finished watching the whole thing.

Boy, I'm proud of having an intelligent President.

claymisher
01-31-2010, 03:02 PM
Last year I was happy to go along with Obamaism (defined as constructive problem-solving, sober debate, reaching out to the opposition, and the general opposite of talk radio and cable news). The death panel demagoguery tested me that but I thought it was worth the effort. The chances of Obamaism succeeding were low but the benefits of success are so great that the risk is worth taking. By this month though it seemed pretty pointless. The Republicans were united, Obama hadn't peeled off any of them, and it wasn't going anywhere. I wanted a fight:


I think just about every honest person can say Obama tried the bipartisan thing. Unless Snowe comes out as a decent person in the next day or so I think it's time to declare total fucking war on the Republicans at the state of the union address. It's that or surrender. They've got nothing to lose by fighting.

This is what Obama told the caucus back in the fall -- that we go up together or we go down together -- and it's even clearer now.

Having watched the House conference q and a twice now I gotta say it's too soon to give up on Obamaism. I'll go even further and say it'll never be time to give up on sober debate and constructive problem-solving. The smear-the-queer slash-and-burn style works great achieving reactionary goals. Its power is only destructive. For making progress, not so much.

Obamaism sucks for us angry leftist partisans but it's our best play. And anyway, Obama's going to keep calling it for the next three or seven years. We might as well get good at running it.

bjkeefe
01-31-2010, 05:58 PM
[...]

Nice. And you're to be applauded for making a public statement about your change in views.

On a note related to your penultimate paragraph, did you see the Larison piece I excerpted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=149116#post149116)?

bjkeefe
01-31-2010, 06:22 PM
On a note related to your penultimate paragraph, did you see the Larison piece I excerpted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=149116#post149116)?

Also somewhat related: Today's Frank Rich column (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31rich.html) is good. He's a little less sanguine than we are about Obama, but he's in agreement about the major sources of the problems.

bjkeefe
01-31-2010, 06:32 PM
... but he's in agreement about the major sources of the problems.

To continue the stream of link-onsciousness, here's a great line:

... the Democratic Party, as it is still called out of ancient custom and utter disregard for fact.

This is from a "Op-Classic" the NYT is re-running -- Russell Baker's op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/01/opinion/observer-and-go-to-sleep.html?pagewanted=1) published right after HW Bush's 1992 SOTU. Boy could write.

Starwatcher162536
02-07-2010, 01:21 AM
Finally got around to watching it, and damn, he owned them. I was wondering while watching it if Obama's admin was the one who determined who was invited, because it kind of seemed like he was playing against the Republican C team.

I could of probably have given him tougher questions then most of the Republicans there.

TwinSwords
02-07-2010, 01:36 AM
I was wondering while watching it if Obama's admin was the one who determined who was invited, because it kind of seemed like he was playing against the Republican C team.
From what I understand, the Republicans consider Rep. Mike Pence, who was the one who asked the first (long) question and at least one of the follow-ups, to be on their A team.

Which is what lead blogger John Cole to say (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=33734), "If Mike Pence really is regarded as one of the deep thinkers for the GOP, Iím beginning to understand why they refused to admit Terri Schiavo was brain-dead."