OBAMA'S AFRAID OF RUSH

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-09-2009
OBAMA'S AFRAID OF RUSH
348
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-09-2009
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 2:19pm
You kids keep chuggin' along...hopeandchange...hopeandchange... yeswecan...yeswecan... hopeandchange...hopeandchange... yeswecan...yeswecan...
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 2:25pm
It is obvious what has happened here. All of their four year terms were up when they were asked to resign. The Democrats were successful in confusing their followers into believing that there was something sinister brewing. It is all propaganda.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2009
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 2:29pm
<<They're the ones killing innocent people.>>



And the US has killed innocent people too. Does that make us a nation of Muslims? The terrorists in question may be Muslims but that doesn't mean that Muslims are necessarily terrorists. Muslims are not the enemy, terrorists are.


Chrissy
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2009
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 3:36pm
Nope.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2009
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 3:44pm

>



 

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 3:45pm

Do you have proof that it was merely a matter of their four year terms being up (along with proof of prosecutors'party affiliation)? From what I can see, there is nothing which indicates an obligatory resignation/firing at the end of four years.

Nor is there any precedent for en masse firings (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8356415) though one wonders if perhaps the reauthorization of the Patriot Act was written to deliberately give more power to the executive branch and take it away from the judicial branch (from your link):
<>

Here in New Mexico, David Iglesias, a Republican, was the federal prosecuting attorney. You might want to share with him that it was really just a Democratic scheme to stir the pot, because Iglesias himself had an entirely different take. He clearly felt that his termination was a direct function of not delivering an indictment against Manny Aragon in time to affect elections favorably for Republicans (Aragon, whom I will NOT defend for his actions, is a Democrat).

Moreover, as I pointed out yesterday, there were other indications that DoJ had drifted far and fast from its mission to ensure that justice, REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION OR IDEOLOGICAL BENT, was being meted out. If Rod Blagojevich deserves censure for trying to sell senatorial appointment for personal gain, then those who tried to influence Justice Department proceedings/hirings/firings for the sake of party gain are no more exempt than Blago. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

I suggest you read this: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf
There are probably some nuggets of truth in the final report though I feel that asking an organization, albeit the DoJ IG and DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility, to critique its own staff and actions is a major conflict of interest. Some of it is rather damning for those making the four-year term limit argument.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 3:56pm
You're asking me to prove something that I didn't say. I didn't say that their firings were due ONLY to their four year terms being up. Apparently they were asked to resign because the president was dissatisfied with their job performances. The unusual thing for some of them was that they were not replaced immediately upon Bush entering office. This is the traditional practice. Instead he allowed those who wanted to stay on to do so. After their four year terms were up, and the president was dissatisfied, they were replaced. This gave the Democrats an opportunity to play politics, which they did.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 4:46pm
It's so much better than having a defeatist attitude which is certainly not helpful to the country.

"

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 4:48pm

Your words: "It is obvious what has happened here. All of their four year terms were up when they were asked to resign." It's reasonable to ask for proof of something which is termed "obvious". If you cannot provide proof, then it seems very unlikely that "obvious" is an accurate characterization.

So are you also saying that Bush was personally dissatisfied with the jobs these prosecutors were doing? How would he know? It's not as though the man has any great curiosity or mental capacity! That line of reasoning isn't gonna work either, not only because of the former president's obvious mental deficits but also because IF the argument carried any water whatsoever, Gonzo would have used it credibly and not had to resign under an obvious cloud. Ditto Kyle Sampson.

So far, NOTHING you have presented supports a claim that Democrats were playing politics in the firings. On the contrary, the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that it was Republican ideologues culling out federal prosecutors who didn't hew to the party line. Repetition of the same "Democrats play politics" phrase doesn't somehow translate into fact or logic. Far from it.

Read the DoJ report--all 392 pages of it. Or if you like, you can cut to the chase and read paragraph C on page 355. I quote:
<> or this bit on page 361:
<>

Zilch, zippo, zero, nada, nil, nothing about terms or Democrats playing politics. Read it (the report) and weep.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 4:50pm
Just a board-educated guess here, but we won't see that link.

"

Pages