Giving Up On obama

[Edgetho]

It's taking its toll, people.

If the IRS scandal didn't move you, maybe the Benghazi scandal did. If neither one of them caused your moral compass to stir, maybe Syria did.

No? How about obamacare? The VA scandal? Veterans dying while on secret waiting lists?

And now, Bergdahl and sending War Criminals to live in Luxury Suites in one of the richest Countries on the Face of the Earth. Qatar.

While the men who died searching for him aren't even recognized.

Are Democrats giving up on Obama? « Hot Air

Not on the record they aren’t, although they’re not exactly enthusiastic about Barack Obama when it comes to hitching their wagons to his central legislative achievement. Off the record, it’s a different story entirely, Ron Fournier writes at National Journal today. His most critical columns of the White House have come with Democratic rather than Republican sourcing, Fournier reveals, which reminds him a lot of the post-Katrina Bush administration:

The email hit my in-box at 9:41 p.m. last Wednesday. From one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, a close adviser to the White House, the missive amounted to an electronic eye roll. “Even I have had enough.”

Another Democrat had quit on President Obama.

The tipping point for this person was the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl case—not the soldier-for-Taliban swap itself as much as how the White House mishandled its obligation to communicate effectively and honestly to Congress and the public. More than that, Obama’s team had failed once again to acknowledge its mistakes, preferring to cast blame and seek cover behind talking points.

According to Fournier, this is not anything new:

“Dem Party is F****d,” wrote a Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill during the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act website.

A Democratic House member whose endorsement in 2008 helped lift the Obama candidacy told me in January, “He’s bored and tired of being president, and our party is paying the price.”

“Talented guy but no leader,” said a Democratic lobbyist and former member of Congress in March. “If he could govern half as well as he campaigns, he’d be a good-to-great president.”

The Taliban 5 swap may be the last straw for more Democrats, including some who aren’t shy about going on the record. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, spent all last week torpedoing White House excuses for cutting a worse deal with the Taliban than the one Congress rejected in 2011. She wasn’t backing down much yesterday when asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, claiming that the White House still hasn’t fully briefed her and her committee on the swap, and haven’t been honest about it either:

Video at the link

Feinstein also said that Obama is “justifiably proud” of bringing Bowe Bergdahl home, but prefaced that by saying that she had no idea why Obama would have made the announcement into a Rose Garden photo op had he known all the circumstances of Bergdahl’s disappearance. It doesn’t appear that Feinstein has much confidence in Obama’s engagement on this issue, and other Democrats feel the same way in general about Obama’s abilities as an executive or a leader.

At the same time, CNN wonders whether the Taliban 5 swap will impose a price on Democrats in the midterms:

Will foreign policy play a factor in the 2014 midterms? It is unlikely that it will be a major issue but there are ways it could have an indirect effect on the ballot box and cause trouble for Democrats when Americans turn out to vote.

At the most immediate level, the foreign policy controversy has already distracted the news media from other kinds of stories upon which congressional Democrats were hoping to focus. The foreign policy controversy intensified just as there was evidence that the economy was picking up steam and that the Obama’s health care program was gaining strength. Both signs of accomplishment were put on the back burner, overshadowed by the Bergdahl debate.

The stories also feed the perception of some voters who feel that Democrats have not done a good job managing government. This is a White House that once prided itself on competence. Obama, a well-educated politician who surrounded himself with bright staff, vowed to avoid the kind of mismanagement that had been on display with Hurricane Katrina during President George W. Bush’s term. But that reputation has slowly been undercut, especially after the botched health care website rollout and the VA scandal.

Some of the coverage of the foreign policy, including recent reports on how the deal with the Taliban was handled, have played into these kinds of criticism. The New York Times published a lengthy piece about the diminishing returns that Obama was able to obtain over the past several years in exchange for the release of the Taliban 5 and evidence of how his team had mishandled the process.

The big risk is in the dispiriting impact this will have on the Democratic base, which turned out big for Obama in his two presidential elections but failed to energize in 2010 while Tea Party anger fueled Republicans’ big win. Democrats in the Beltway who give up on Obama will be a big problem for the White House, but if that’s representative of how Americans outside of the DC clique feel the same way, it will mean disaster again in the midterm elections. And it’s not just foreign policy, but also the VA scandal that has them wondering exactly what Barack Obama thinks he does for a living.

Edge:
Multiple links to outside sites at the link posted.

dims are in big trouble. After the November Midterms, things may change a LOT more than any of us think is possible

 

[KNB]

And the blessed GOP is the answer to all of our problems, right? Just build that pipeline and then we can defeat terrorism forever, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I could explain why Obama doesn't actually matter very much now, why his poll numbers make perfect sense, but you wouldn't understand. To do so requires decades of watching American Politics. Carry on.

 

[blastoff]

Barry digs the pomp and circumstance of the job. Unfortunately, it seems he came to it thinking that's all there was to it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Barry digs the pomp and circumstance of the job. Unfortunately, it seems he came to it thinking that's all there was to it.

Often enough that's what the job requires. He's not a king, even though you morons believe so.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And the blessed GOP is the answer to all of our problems, right? Just build that pipeline and then we can defeat terrorism forever, right?

It's obvious you can't defend your President.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And the blessed GOP is the answer to all of our problems, right? Just build that pipeline and then we can defeat terrorism forever, right?

It's obvious you can't defend your President.

What President do you have, the last two guys who lost?

 

[NLT]

It's taking its toll, people.

If the IRS scandal didn't move you, maybe the Benghazi scandal did. If neither one of them caused your moral compass to stir, maybe Syria did.

No? How about obamacare? The VA scandal? Veterans dying while on secret waiting lists?

And now, Bergdahl and sending War Criminals to live in Luxury Suites in one of the richest Countries on the Face of the Earth. Qatar.

While the men who died searching for him aren't even recognized.

Are Democrats giving up on Obama? « Hot Air

Not on the record they aren’t, although they’re not exactly enthusiastic about Barack Obama when it comes to hitching their wagons to his central legislative achievement. Off the record, it’s a different story entirely, Ron Fournier writes at National Journal today. His most critical columns of the White House have come with Democratic rather than Republican sourcing, Fournier reveals, which reminds him a lot of the post-Katrina Bush administration:

The email hit my in-box at 9:41 p.m. last Wednesday. From one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, a close adviser to the White House, the missive amounted to an electronic eye roll. “Even I have had enough.”

Another Democrat had quit on President Obama.

The tipping point for this person was the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl case—not the soldier-for-Taliban swap itself as much as how the White House mishandled its obligation to communicate effectively and honestly to Congress and the public. More than that, Obama’s team had failed once again to acknowledge its mistakes, preferring to cast blame and seek cover behind talking points.

According to Fournier, this is not anything new:

“Dem Party is F****d,” wrote a Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill during the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act website.

A Democratic House member whose endorsement in 2008 helped lift the Obama candidacy told me in January, “He’s bored and tired of being president, and our party is paying the price.”

“Talented guy but no leader,” said a Democratic lobbyist and former member of Congress in March. “If he could govern half as well as he campaigns, he’d be a good-to-great president.”

The Taliban 5 swap may be the last straw for more Democrats, including some who aren’t shy about going on the record. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, spent all last week torpedoing White House excuses for cutting a worse deal with the Taliban than the one Congress rejected in 2011. She wasn’t backing down much yesterday when asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, claiming that the White House still hasn’t fully briefed her and her committee on the swap, and haven’t been honest about it either:

Video at the link

Feinstein also said that Obama is “justifiably proud” of bringing Bowe Bergdahl home, but prefaced that by saying that she had no idea why Obama would have made the announcement into a Rose Garden photo op had he known all the circumstances of Bergdahl’s disappearance. It doesn’t appear that Feinstein has much confidence in Obama’s engagement on this issue, and other Democrats feel the same way in general about Obama’s abilities as an executive or a leader.

At the same time, CNN wonders whether the Taliban 5 swap will impose a price on Democrats in the midterms:

Will foreign policy play a factor in the 2014 midterms? It is unlikely that it will be a major issue but there are ways it could have an indirect effect on the ballot box and cause trouble for Democrats when Americans turn out to vote.

At the most immediate level, the foreign policy controversy has already distracted the news media from other kinds of stories upon which congressional Democrats were hoping to focus. The foreign policy controversy intensified just as there was evidence that the economy was picking up steam and that the Obama’s health care program was gaining strength. Both signs of accomplishment were put on the back burner, overshadowed by the Bergdahl debate.

The stories also feed the perception of some voters who feel that Democrats have not done a good job managing government. This is a White House that once prided itself on competence. Obama, a well-educated politician who surrounded himself with bright staff, vowed to avoid the kind of mismanagement that had been on display with Hurricane Katrina during President George W. Bush’s term. But that reputation has slowly been undercut, especially after the botched health care website rollout and the VA scandal.

Some of the coverage of the foreign policy, including recent reports on how the deal with the Taliban was handled, have played into these kinds of criticism. The New York Times published a lengthy piece about the diminishing returns that Obama was able to obtain over the past several years in exchange for the release of the Taliban 5 and evidence of how his team had mishandled the process.

The big risk is in the dispiriting impact this will have on the Democratic base, which turned out big for Obama in his two presidential elections but failed to energize in 2010 while Tea Party anger fueled Republicans’ big win. Democrats in the Beltway who give up on Obama will be a big problem for the White House, but if that’s representative of how Americans outside of the DC clique feel the same way, it will mean disaster again in the midterm elections. And it’s not just foreign policy, but also the VA scandal that has them wondering exactly what Barack Obama thinks he does for a living.

Edge:
Multiple links to outside sites at the link posted.

dims are in big trouble. After the November Midterms, things may change a LOT more than any of us think is possible

Liberals with half a brain are bailing on obammy, USMB doesn't have any of those type of liberals.

 

[KNB]

And the blessed GOP is the answer to all of our problems, right? Just build that pipeline and then we can defeat terrorism forever, right?

It's obvious you can't defend your President.

Why would I want to? I didn't vote for him in either election. He's a corporate puppet like Bush. He's a war criminal like Bush. He's proven himself to be just as much of a piece of shit as George W. Bush.

But the GOP gave us Cheney and Bush, both war criminals, and still defends them and their lies which are still costing us lives and funds. The GOP can fuck itself deep and hard until the end of time.

 

[candycorn]

I would say Obama has no chance of winning in 2016.

 

[Siete]

giving up on Obama?

good, can you be counted on to shut up too ?

 

[Peach]

I would say Obama has no chance of winning in 2016.

I'll bet ya 25.....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And the blessed GOP is the answer to all of our problems, right? Just build that pipeline and then we can defeat terrorism forever, right?

It's obvious you can't defend your President.

What President do you have, the last two guys who lost?

I don't have one at the moment. But in 2016 that will change.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's obvious you can't defend your President.

What President do you have, the last two guys who lost?

I don't have one at the moment. But in 2016 that will change.

Interesting. You're a patriot alright.

 

[Bush92]

Susan Rice is running the country. She was the one that wanted Bergdahl release for a PR campaign...that blew-up in their face. She screwed up Benghazi talking points. It's like amateur hour at the White House. Obama WH staff and spokespeople are like a version of College Democrats. His administration is too worried about being sooooo PC that it has hurt him. They have the correct images with just the right amount of women, gays and lesbians, young people, and minorities working for them. This way they "give good face" to their leftist base. Should of been more concerned with hiring the best people for the job. More concerned with image than getting the job done.

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Marie-Harf-St-Dept-8113.jpg.jpg
http://static2.businessinsider.com/...into-russia-at-a-security-council-meeting.jpg
http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Ambassador+UN+Susan+Rice+Discusses+North+Korean+bVseQb8l36zl.jpg
http://static3.businessinsider.com/...ress-secretary-jay-carney-has-a-new-beard.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2014-05-30/Getty/178335504.jpg
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2014/01/27/adegbile-645.jpg

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And the blessed GOP is the answer to all of our problems, right? Just build that pipeline and then we can defeat terrorism forever, right?

It's obvious you can't defend your President.

Why would I want to? I didn't vote for him in either election. He's a corporate puppet like Bush. He's a war criminal like Bush. He's proven himself to be just as much of a piece of shit as George W. Bush.

But the GOP gave us Cheney and Bush, both war criminals, and still defends them and their lies which are still costing us lives and funds. The GOP can fuck itself deep and hard until the end of time.

You can't even if you wanted to. That's why you have to rundown the GOP.

Idiots like you that call people war criminals have yet to provide any evidence of a crime being committed. You're a liberal hack whether you admit it or not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What President do you have, the last two guys who lost?

I don't have one at the moment. But in 2016 that will change.

Interesting. You're a patriot alright.

Define patriot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't have one at the moment. But in 2016 that will change.

Interesting. You're a patriot alright.

Define patriot.

The opposite of you who understands that you always have a President, even if you don't like the guy.

 

[g5000]

I've never liked Obama, but the faux right wing's manufactured bullshit over the IRS and Benghazi, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, Bergdahl ad nauseum has only succeeded in making me give up on the Right, not Obama.

The Right has been hijacked by retards, liars, hypocrites, and psychopaths. There are a great many things about Obama that are dangerous and which could have taken him down in 2008 or 2012, but the retards convinced themselves the IRS, Benghazi, et al were those things. The Right is too retarded to see the actual dangers which Obama represents.

If a retard is attacking shadows on the wall, how confident can you be they know what is best for America?

 

[Peach]

9/11/01, Iraq, NOLA,......the Bush disasters outweigh Obama's.......mediocre tenure.

Christie/Warren-Warren/Christie 2016, through everybody a curveball!