OBAMA'S AFRAID OF RUSH
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 01-26-2009 - 12:48pm |
Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done
Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.
While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.
"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."
The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

Pages
>>> As a reminder: government is supposed to serve the people, NOT the party.
Obama: Obama told Cantor this morning that "on some of these issues we're just going to have ideological differences." The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."
Pelosi: “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.”
I don't believe that Obama was saying that he thinks Rush influences their decisions. I've already said what I believe he meant and obviously you believe otherwise and we'll just leave it at that. As far as the articles you posted, I've read them but it's hard to comment when everything is taken out of context and you don't know what was said to illicit Obama's statements not to emotion that we also don't know the tone in which they were said. I for one think that it's best not to make negative assumptions without knowing the whole story. Also, I hardly think that these comments are creating the amount of controversy as they seem to be stirring up on this board. This article from politico seems to show that Obama is trying his best to work with republicans and that the republicans appreciate that he is being inclusive -
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18024.html
You should read the article in post#228. Apparently many republicans don't seem to think that Obama is saying "you have to listen to me..." and using intimidation. He's sitting down with them, he's trying to work together. It's been pointed out that he only needs 2 republicans to pass this bill, why would he even bother trying to be inclusive? And don't even
>>> Actually, Gore carried 95% of the black vote and Kerry got 93% so percentage-wise Obama didn't do as good as those two (white) candidates.
Percentage wise, Obama is tied with Gore at 95% (I stand corrected) of the black vote...but with record turnout, that 95% represents a notably higher number of individuals...motivated by the "historic" nature of th election.
>>> But I do agree that there were people who may have voted for "race", but I believe that happened on both sides.
There's an interesting split in your usual partisan demographic. McCain was the first choice for very few conservatives, so many opted to sit out the election, but I'm sure that, without a strong candidate to support, many conservatives also jumped the isle and voted for the "black" candidate for "historic" reasons. I don't believe, however, that any significant number of people voted against Obama because he is black.
>>> I'm sure there were many people who ignored "substance" and chose not to vote for Obama strictly because of his race.
Those who ignored "substance" voted FOR Obama.
>>> And as for the rest of your comment, being hopeful and wanting change does not necessarily mean that someone is ill-informed.
That wasn't the basis of the Zogby poll. Obama supporters were uninformed on the issues and our government.
>>> Perhaps they wanted change because they were very much informed regarding the mistakes that had been made during the Bush administration and they had hope that Obama could help get us back on course. Just because their vote was different then yours does not make them "ill-informed".
Zogby proved they were ill-informed...and the endless list of lies and propaganda I've heard here demonstrates that they're no better informed about Bush or the issues that have affected the country for the past 8 years. Wanting "change" is fine...but what change was Obama proposing? Most Obama supporters couldn't answer that question...they probably still can't.
Pages