Hope! Change! Incompetence!

Minor correction: "Incompetence"

TY, Alyric.

I can only imagine how much Oblamo liked getting that bit of dissent.

Of course the source will be the aide. Expect to find him suitably recalcitrant after some Chicago therapy.

But much of this is as it was described at the time. Obama went back on the deal, kept pushing, no integrity.

And of course what is he more concerned about..that Boehnor doesnt call him back immeadiately. It is the perceived disrespect that drives him crazy, which is why that Harry Reid aide better have someone else start his car for him.

Speaking of Obama and the Democrats living in a fictional world, how about this from a Lenny Davis on 'Three Reasons why Clinton is campainging for Obama'. Here they are:

"First, it's about the future, stupid.

In the 42 years I have known him, Bill Clinton has always been about the future -- and he reminded Democrats that only President Obama has set out a vision to improve the economy by maintaining a balance between government programs that are needed by the middle class and a private sector that must be energized as the engine of job creation.

Second, it's about fairness, stupid.

President Clinton reminded the nation that President Obama stands for equity in paying down the nation's $16 trillion national debt -- where people who are wealthy and super-rich pay their fair share, rather than having their taxes cut further.

Finally, it's about decency and civility, stupid.

Of all the messages, President Clinton used the language of respect -- and respectful disagreement -- with Governor Romney and Rep. Ryan's ideas. And he said he saw in President Obama a willingness to practice his kind of politics --not the kind that announced that the central priority would be to defeat President Obama, rather than solve the problems of our country."

This is what a Democrat writes. And this is the type of fiction that many Democrats believe in.

How about that first one, that 'vision of the future'? How does a stimulus that went to the PUBLIC sector not the private, a plethora of regulations stifling small businesses, and proposed taxes on small businesses (anyone making over 250,000 a year), show support for small business?

And that second one, heh, the national debt, which Obama has all by Himself increased more than any president in just three short years? And what's this about 'fair share' of taxes? Ten percent of the American taxpayer pays 71% of the taxes, and 47% pay zilch. Nothing. Nothing. And does he seriously think that removing more Investment money from the economy, slurped up by the Obama government, is going to help the debt or the economy?

What about the last assertion? Decency and civility? From a man who exhorts hispanics to 'get the enemy', who sets up a class war, who sets up a gender war, who claims that Romney caused cancer in a woman, that he's a felon, that Ryan will push his grandmother off a cliff? Did Obama stop these ads? Nope. Silence.

This is the Democratic 'mind'.

This matter/book goes under the heading of "be careful what you wish".

I wouldn't move that aide'c car with a tilt and load...

Folks in that world should have remote car starters...

But then I recall being a bit paranoid at one point and later found I was being prudent.

I rigged a plastic tie to the hood latch and another day did a cursury inspection ....I found a tap fuse taped to the exhaust manifold with strike-anywhere matches....probably a 5 minute delay rig. Simple, reliable and effective.

Paranoids usually are survivors......

I'm sick and tired of the left's assertion that they "support small business". I reject the entire premise of that statement. It's a complete bunch of hogwash :

1) First of all by what definition is a business "small"? They never say do they? Is it based on revenues (EVIL PROFITS!!!), or is it a head count of employees? Or maybe sales? What measure is used and what is the quantifier?
2) Once we establish what a "small" business is can anyone explain why they deserve to be singled out for special attention? What's so special about "small" businesses that suddenly disapears when a business grows beyong the "small" size?

I highly doubt they could answer either of those questions because it's a lie to get dumb people to believe they aren't against capitalism.

@james Small business United States 500 employees or less, Canada 50 employees or less.

ET I love this: "Finally, it's about decency and civility, stupid."

Lanny Davis really wrote that? That's golden. That should be a bumper sticker.

Or maybe I'm getting too "meta" in my old age? At least three layers there eh? ~:D

"1) First of all by what definition is a business "small"? They never say do they?"

Probably like Stalin's definition of a kulak. It was adjustable according to the need to find slave labour, or in this case, "Tax the rich".

phantom- yes, Lanny Davis wrote that; the whole piece was a direct cut and paste of his article.

I'm speculalating, but, I think that we really have two sets of the American population. Those who want others to support or provide for them. And those who want the freedom to self-support and work for themselves. I do NOT include in either set those who are genuinely in need.

From what I read of the Democrat supporters, their rhetoric is all about entitlements. I mean that; it's totally about what they want from government.

They are concerned about their refunds, their medical care, their abortion costs, their student loans, etc. They want to have a house without debt; they almost expect the government to pay the mortgage. They have no rhetoric about work, about rules and regulations enabling them to set up or work in a business. They never refer to 'the environment' except in the most ambiguous and irrelevant terms (glaciers are melting).

They talk about their 'moral entitlements', to abortion, contraception, gay marriage. They say nothing about religious rights or Natural Law or the Constitution.

They don't refer to the debt, to the cost of entitlements; they don't refer to terrorism or foreign affairs. It's primarily one thing only; what they expect to receive from 'the government'. How to fund it? The Evil Wealthy - some amorphous drooling rich (white) man in his tower. They ignore that Obama has close links to...And they have absolutely no understanding of economics.

The GOP rhetoric is all about getting a job, setting up small businesses, reducing the debt, reducing regulations, reforming tax codes.

There is very little talk about abortion, other than being pro-life. Most social issues are left to the States, including marriage. The focus is that government is only there to assist people to work, self-support, help others.

Two totally different world views. Which one will define America?

I'm adding one further speculation. WHY did Clinton, who loathes Obama, support him? He couldn't say what he thinks for he'd be blamed for Obama's loss. I'm going to speculate. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain. He's looking at 2016 and Hillary. Does he think that Obama will lose this election, and therefore, Clinton's speech will elevate Clinton as a 'great guy', irrespective of Obama?

phantom, I replied to you but the filter caught it. Hopefully it will be 'let free'!

If Jimmy Carter had a Son he would be just like Obama.

This is an interesting story as Woodward lays it out. After two months of negotiations the two are nearly at agreement. It’s a critical moment, as the nation’s financial survival is at stake. Now at literally the last minute, Obama demands a further concession.

Stop right there. I’ve been in a lot of contract negotiations over the years. When done properly, you go in knowing what things you have to have out of an agreement, and, just as important, what things the other side has to have. There’s usually a large gray area in the middle of things we want but aren’t utterly essential. You have to know the other side’s line in the sand, do not cross. And you make it your business to find out.

Now there’s no way Obama could not have known what Boehner’s die-in-the-last-ditch position was. The Republicans had been thundering on about it for the previous three years. So this isn’t negotiating incompetence.

It’s something worse. The worst and most treacherous kind of negotiators are those who, at the end of a bargaining session when you’re close to agreement, suddenly introduce a large new clause or condition. Normally by the end of negotiations, you’re dotting i’s and crossing t’s. To do this last minute brinkmanship means that everything previously agreed has now been called into question. Worse, by introducing it now and not at the beginning means that this party has been negotiating in bad faith. They’re trying to put the squeeze on, figuring you need the deal more than they do.

So, in a session in which Obama and Boehner agreed to settle their differences for the sake of the nation and do a deal, Obama at the last minute tries to squeeze a clear political advantage over what was supposed to be a national policy session.

I admire Boehner’s discipline. He simply refused to take the call. Had I been presented with such outrageous behaviour by Obama, I’d have been swearing a blue streak for a week. There are still companies that after 20 years I will never, ever do business with for pulling stunts like this.

ET, the answer to your question is straightforward. Clinton loathes Obama and vice versa, and everyone with two functioning neurons knows it. So if Obama goes down after Clinton has worked tirelessly for him, Clinton again becomes the Great Leader of the Democrat Party. The Grand Old Man who has all the answers, and is also the ultimate party loyalist who will even campaign for a man he despises.

Yes, it’s about putting Hillary in the White House in 2016. After all this is a political marriage more than anything. But it’s also about cementing Clinton’s position and legacy as the Democrat’s FDR of the 21st century.

Obama ... "Not on MY watch."

After watching a few different video clips and proggys this afternoon, it is clear what the Dumbocrats strategy is in this election.

It's Dubya's fault!

Oblameya is just a victim of circumstance

He's just getting started.

Racism!

These people are either mentally disturbed, or incapable of rational thought. Irresponsible.

They did not accept any responsibility on Oblameyas behalf for anything.

Not the deficit (GOP's fault), not unemployment(HE's created 4.5 million jobs), not Solyndra(Green energy is good).

A real president accepts responsibility, this guy is a fake, Clint's empty chair was apropos!

I guess it called instinct:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/31/obama-speech-to-soldiers-met-with-silence/

cgh:

I remember reading a book called You Can Negotiate Anything by Herb Cohen. In it, he described "the nibble". That's when, after both parties think they've reached a satisfactory deal, one party comes back and asks for a small (hence the term 'nibble') concession. The idea is if you've been battling hard, and you think you've got a deal, you'll shrug and give up one more little bit, rather than ditch the deal and start all over again. And, to a certain extent, the technique works, if the nibbler isn't too greedy. In the old days, when buying a car, my dad used to wait to the end, and then ask for free undercoating. More often as not, it got thrown in (to hear my dad tell it, at least).

But if the nibbler seriously misjudges both the size of what he's asking for, and the character of the nibblee, it can blow up in his face. And that's what happened here. Bambam, who always think he's the smartest person in the room, couldn't appreciate that Boehner felt he'd already given more than enough, and that asking for more was disrespectful to a proud man.

Playing the armchair shrink, I'm willing to bet Bambam's been a nibbler ever since he moved back to the states, playing off white guilt. Even in his choom days, he apparently liked to call "interruptor!" and grab the joint from whoever had it, getting more than his share while the others acquiesced. I'm sure that's how he weaseled his way into the Law Review at Harvard; it sure wasn't for the quality or quantity of his articles. After a while, nibbling just becomes a part of you - when people almost always give in, why not ask every time?

But in this case, he bit off more than Boehner could chew, and now it's come back to bite
Bambam in his rear end. Just desserts, IMHO.