http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/president.tension/index.html

Time for Obama to send in his hired muscle?

Two of the biggest dirges alive.

/agree

I suspect they see their political power shrinking with the oncoming Tsunami that is Obama and this is an attempt to bluff their way into the spotlight.

I don't think either one of them wants to be on the wrong end of the power play.

And people wonder why he choose Emanual as his COS. Ried and Pelosi need to be carefull. the more i watch him the deeper my respect gets. Obama is definately not a pussy.

I don't think either one of them wants to be on the wrong end of the power play.

Oh yea, lets not forget Obama jumped feet first into Chicago politics and kicked ass in an arena thats traditionaly not for the faint of heart. hardball is not a game those morons should engage the administration in lightly.

I for one hope, no pray that ousting those 2 from leadership positions is one of the presidents priorities.

Oh yea, lets not forget Obama jumped feet first into Chicago politics and kicked ass in an arena thats traditionaly not for the faint of heart. hardball is not a game those morons should engage the administration in lightly.

I for one hope, no pray that ousting those 2 from leadership positions is one of the presidents priorities.

I totally agree, as I find Pelosi nauseating in the extreme.

Like the President should take economic/tax direction from Pelosi, a Congresswoman from the state noted for continual financial turmoil.

She bugs me. I can't quite put my finger on why except that she seems to be a lightweight in a critical position.

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe they are right? A huge part of Obama's platform was that the Bush tax cuts had to go. Now he's saying the opposite.

An edit to add something, Obama is asking for $350 billion in TARP, and then an "emergency energy rebate" of $1000 per family, and $200 billion in "stimulus" (including money building bike trails at a cost to the American Taxpayer nearly $250,000 per job ... not to mention $650 million for an advertising campaign to prepare the country for Universal Healthcare)

Where the fuck does he expect the country to get all that money if they don't get rid of the tax cuts Bush put into place?

" Where the fuck does he expect the country to get all that money if they don't get rid of the tax cuts Bush put into place?"

Deficit spending. It's a tradition! :)

Well obviously, but he ran on a platform of cutting the taxes to pay for this. Now you guys are complaining that Reid and Pelosi are calling him out on refusing to fulfill a campaign promise - and are ok with that?

Timing mainly. He didn't specify cutting the tax breaks immediately and is content to let them expire un-renewed in two years.

On one hand, its good to see a president reminded of his promises. On the other its annoying when it is a blatant power play between the executive and legislative branches over who has the bigger dick.

Let's not forget how Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress ran their mouths about everything they would do if they got the majority in '06, and they did jack-squat. Now, with even more of a majority and a Democrat in the WH, Pelosi is trying to develop a stronger legacy than what she currently has on record. Fuck her.

And as far as the tax cuts, yeah, it would be nice to see them returned to the prior levels, but I can also understand the need to not add financial burden during a time of financial crisis, because it would definitely "trickle down" to many that could not handle it. Let them simply expire.

I wouldn't be so quick to throw Pelosi and Reid under the bus - I see this more as an issue of holding his feet to the fire with regard to what he promised and his supporters were asking for. From what I read this morning, the primary differences being cited in that article are: 1) whether to roll back the Bush tax cuts (Pelosi favors, stating that these (and correctly so) were the biggest contributor to the deficit, Obama does not at the present time), 2) whether to investigate the Bush administration's politicizing of the Justice Department (Pelosi/Reid favor, Obama doesn't), and 3) whether the executive should have unfettered access to the (abysmally administered/overseen to this point) remaining bailout funds. Pelosi/Reid have a valid case for all of these; while you can argue as to the sincerity of their motivations, I think that their positions more accurately reflect what the public is asking for at the present time, and (in the case of the Justice department) to let some of these slide would be sorely negligent for an administration that has promised fundamental change and to restore integrity and transparency to its civil service. I'm not advocating a witch hunt, but some housecleaning, truth and reconciliation (as opposed to just smoothing over) and accountability is in order...

On the upside, the new administration has hit the ground running with regard to its public policy face on many social and scientific issues, including, although I can't get to it right now because of the intertube logjam at whitehouse.gov, a clear and unambiguous statement that the administration was fully committed to upholding Roe v Wade as the law of the land and supporting a woman's ultimate right to choose (he also repealed the infamous 'gag rule' which stopped all family planning aid to any program which even mentioned abortion).

I think the new administration is off to a decent start, but also that Obama's ideals *do* need to be checked against reality and the public interest, and I'd rather see some taking to task than an administration where everything was running like a well-oiled machine. Just because we think we like the answers, failing to question, or squashing dissent, is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Regards,
Nydia

(P.S. I see Kelraz and Gulor replied to this while my post languished in the editor while in lab. I wasn't meaning to sound 'me too' as I'd started it at 2:15 this afternoon... ;) )

Bylimet that is kinda a bullshit argument for complaining they didn't do anything (when they did plenty, a few hundred bills in fact) and most of the time they had their hands tied by a veto (not to mention in some issues democrats simply can't vote certain ways the whip tells them to because they are loyal to their constituency first). I'm sure they could have done more, but I don't want that to be an argument for them to do nothing when their President is asking for over half a trillion dollars.

People are building Obama up to be something greater than a person and they're being realists. First of all, they refused to give Bush the second half of the TARP because he didn't have any restrictions on it and it ended up paying for failed banks to give bonuses and actually no troubled asset relief (hence the name) which was the whole point of the thing. They passed a bill in the House enforcing Obama does just that ... but they've opted to let it slide in the Senate since they trust him and he pledged to follow the bill anyway. So they should trust him entirely, do whatever he asks but he shouldn't have to give anything in return to the people they represent? That's just ridiculous.

bylimet that is kinda a bullshit argument for complaining they didn't do anything (when they did plenty, a few hundred bills in fact) and most of the time they had their hands tied by a veto (not to mention in some issues democrats simply can't vote certain ways the whip tells them to because they are loyal to their constituency first). I'm sure they could have done more, but i don't want that to be an argument for them to do nothing when their president is asking for over half a trillion dollars.

People are building obama up to be something greater than a person and they're being realists. First of all, they refused to give bush the second half of the tarp because he didn't have any restrictions on it and it ended up paying for failed banks to give bonuses and actually no troubled asset relief (hence the name) which was the whole point of the thing. They passed a bill in the house enforcing obama does just that ... But they've opted to let it slide in the senate since they trust him and he pledged to follow the bill anyway. So they should trust him entirely, do whatever he asks but he shouldn't have to give anything in return to the people they represent? That's just ridiculous.


lol

Nancy Pelosi is a dirty cunt. I'd elaborate, but well that pretty much sums it up right there. I hope Obama throws her out on her ass, political grandstanding bitch that she is. She always talks big, but then hides when it comes down to making real decisions.

We'll cut funding off for Iraq and bring out troops home!

Or really we'll just sign a non-binding agreement that says we're really really angry at Bush and want him to consider thinking about maybe the possibility of bringing home our troops sometime this century.

Let her grandstand, do it Nancy throw your clout and as you do so you alienate yourself from the man with the greatest momentum in the country. If they push too far they'll be begging to come back and will do pretty much what he says. If it were anyone else I'd say they meant well and were trying to hold his feet to the fire...but I highly doubt it.

Does it matter what their underlying intentions, when they are in fact trying to hold him to his promises? Either way, if he doesn't do what he said, then he's no different than the rest, right?

Sure, maybe, but I don't think it's what she really wants, I think she just really wants to hear herself speak. And the other thing too is, it's day two, he's got another 1459 to go. If He were in past the 6 Month mark and was still being wishy-washy about it I could understand. But no, she is just blowing garbage out of her ass so she can look important and powerful.

I don't doubt that her motivations suck. Starting at her very core and radiating outward to everything she touches, she is the very embodiment of suck.

Bylimet that is kinda a bullshit argument for complaining they didn't do anything (when they did plenty, a few hundred bills in fact) and most of the time they had their hands tied by a veto (not to mention in some issues democrats simply can't vote certain ways the whip tells them to because they are loyal to their constituency first). I'm sure they could have done more, but I don't want that to be an argument for them to do nothing when their President is asking for over half a trillion dollars.

People are building Obama up to be something greater than a person and they're being realists. First of all, they refused to give Bush the second half of the TARP because he didn't have any restrictions on it and it ended up paying for failed banks to give bonuses and actually no troubled asset relief (hence the name) which was the whole point of the thing. They passed a bill in the House enforcing Obama does just that ... but they've opted to let it slide in the Senate since they trust him and he pledged to follow the bill anyway. So they should trust him entirely, do whatever he asks but he shouldn't have to give anything in return to the people they represent? That's just ridiculous.


Where in my post does any of this get said, or addressed? Please, Kel, allow me to despise the shallowness of Pelosi without foisting an assortment of bullshit on me as my "so-called" rationale.

Does it matter what their underlying intentions, when they are in fact trying to hold him to his promises? Either way, if he doesn't do what he said, then he's no different than the rest, right?

Not really, no.

Though I'm just being anal and disagreeing with an over-generalization.

I don't doubt that her motivations suck. Starting at her very core and radiating outward to everything she touches, she is the very embodiment of suck.


Harsh, but I find myself in reluctant agreement.