Obama's Broken Promise Backlash

[Sinatra]

Yeah, like the average house frau in America is going to turn off her stories and watch C-span all afternoon.

More ado-doo about nothing.

CNN's Cafferty disagrees...

"It was all just another lie in order to get elected..."


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO1oJPps1I[/ame]

 

[Oldandtired]

Yeah, like the average house frau in America is going to turn off her stories and watch C-span all afternoon.

More ado-doo about nothing.

Ahhh...so lets put the onus on the American People. Sure he lied about C-SPAN...but Americans would not have watched anyway...so it does not matter that he lied.

Helluva diversion from the question of his lying. Helluva diversion.

 

[namvet]

The anti-CSPAN stance of the Obama/Pelosi is gaining notice by the mainstream media now - and the tone of dissaproval grows increasingly strong against the president...

___

Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency

As a Candidate, President Obama Promised to Put Health Care Reform Negotiations on C-SPAN

CBS) President Obama wants the final negotiations on health care reform - a reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the bill - put on a fast track, even if that means breaking an explicit campaign promise.

"The House and Senate plan to put together the final health care reform bill behind closed doors according to an agreement by top Democrats," House Speaker Nanci Pelosi said today at the White House.

The White House is on board with that, too, reports CBS News political correspondent Chip Reid. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed today that "the president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible."

Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency - CBS Evening News - CBS News

president??? we ain't got no fuckin president​

 

[saveliberty]

He is a lying dumb ass. He is a Chicago Politician, what did you expect?

And what is sad is his supporters either won't care or will defend him. All the while mumbling something about Bush was worse.

Non-sequitur. And Bush was a Texas millionaire oilman. Your point? They all have to come from somewhere, and each state has its own history of corruption.

Yet few quite as deep, long-lasting and prevalent as Chicago. You know its bad when New York probably isn't a serious front runner.

 

[Sinatra]

Yeah, like the average house frau in America is going to turn off her stories and watch C-span all afternoon.

More ado-doo about nothing.

Ahhh...so lets put the onus on the American People. Sure he lied about C-SPAN...but Americans would not have watched anyway...so it does not matter that he lied.

Helluva diversion from the question of his lying. Helluva diversion.

Very weak and apologist diversion indeed!

 

[Murf76]

I would say that Obama wants it done so that he can move on to the more pressing issue of the economy, especially unemployment. His Ace in the Hole, after all, is, as you say, to come before the American people and say "I tried..." Which will win him kudos from unexpected places.

Okay... I'm not gonna be an asshole about it and keep pressing the point. But I suspect you already understand that CSPAN putting cameras in the room doesn't affect the speed of the process. It's not like cameras make PEOPLE move in slow-motion.

 

[Sinatra]

Gibbs Refuses to Address Obama's Broken C-SPAN Promises


Given the generally sycophantic attitude of the White House Press Corps, Robert Gibbs may have been caught off guard when he started facing some tough questions on President Obama's apparent flip-flop regarding his many promises to broadcast health care negotiations on C-SPAN. Gibbs stubbornly refused to answer multiple questions about the broken promises

...C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb recently sent a letter to the President and Congressional leaders "respectfully request[ing] that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American." That request went unheeded.

Gibbs Refuses to Address Obama's Broken C-SPAN Promises | NewsBusters.org

 

[Sinatra]

I would say that Obama wants it done so that he can move on to the more pressing issue of the economy, especially unemployment. His Ace in the Hole, after all, is, as you say, to come before the American people and say "I tried..." Which will win him kudos from unexpected places.

Okay... I'm not gonna be an asshole about it and keep pressing the point. But I suspect you already understand that CSPAN putting cameras in the room doesn't affect the speed of the process. It's not like cameras make PEOPLE move in slow-motion.

Ah, you are forwarding the request for an open and honest coverage of one of the single most important legislative vehicles to come from DC decades - a request based upon the oft-repeated promises of candidate, and now President, Obama himself!

You can't expect the Obama apologists to support such a request can you? Oh no, now it is time for as much back-door government dealings as possible!

 

[Murf76]

Yeah, like the average house frau in America is going to turn off her stories and watch C-span all afternoon.

More ado-doo about nothing.

They're not worried about hausfraus. They're worried about getting pasted to YouTube.

 

[saveliberty]

Democrats want a public option, but no public access to the proceedings.

Just how does a televised proceeding INCREASE the time it takes to pass the bill?

The lack of action by Obama on his promise speaks volumes.

As I reflect, Obama didn't promise us a thing but hope and change.

 

[Oldandtired]

My personal opinion is that this whole thing has gone on long enough. The Republicans have already had their say, and their WAY in many cases. Prolonging it any further by open conference committee debate will simply dredge up the same Republican oppositions that they have been espousing for a year. Democrats would have to deal with motions to recommit on issues already debated (Medicare cuts, "death panels," abortion, and other wedge issues.

The Democrats at this point aren't trying to pull a fast one. They are abiding by the updated rules established in 2003.

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Going_to_Conference_in_the_Senate.pdf

Yeah... but that doesn't explain why they won't let the cameras in.

The way I see it, denying the committee process is about me, the conservative. But keeping the cameras out altogether is about you, the liberal. These are two separate issues entirely. Two separate questions.

We conservatives can't possibly get any more pissed off than we already are. There's nothing to lose there. What they lose, by letting America see them put the final touches on the sausage... is you. So, you're the one they're hiding from, not me. It would seem the appropriate question to ask yourself might be "Why?".

This isn't anything different than what we were talking about the other day on another thread. "Who has something to gain?" The negative publicity of broken promises is a pretty heavy burden to bear if there's no profit in it.

The reason for the rush is obvious. Obama wants it done before his State of the Union. The reason for skipping committee is obvious. They don't want anymore Republican challenges. But the reason why the cameras aren't allowed inside is a good bit more murky, wouldn't you say? They don't seem to have a coherent answer for that.

I would say that Obama wants it done so that he can move on to the more pressing issue of the economy, especially unemployment. His Ace in the Hole, after all, is, as you say, to come before the American people and say "I tried..." Which will win him kudos from unexpected places.

If the economy is a more pressing issue as you say, then why not trackle that first?

Instead, he pushes healthcare through with little or no transparency for time expediency reasons...uses the excuse that 14K a day LOSE health insurance....admits that regardless of how quickly it goes through, it wont start insuring the uninusred for 4 years...

And finally...why is it that with this "transparent" administration, you answer a question with "I would say"...which means you dont know for sure...but you assume....

I find that most interesting.

 

[Murf76]

Ah, you are forwarding the request for an open and honest coverage of one of the single most important legislative vehicles to come from DC decades - a request based upon the oft-repeated promises of candidate, and now President, Obama himself!

You can't expect the Obama apologists to support such a request can you? Oh no, now it is time for as much back-door government dealings as possible!

Hey... I'm just bein' friendly and trying to pass 'em the lube.
On the question of whether we'd have committees or not, Pelosi and Reid have already had their way with my wrinkly, old ass.

This business about cameras being in the room though is clearly about liberals being next in line.

 

[Sinatra]

Yeah... but that doesn't explain why they won't let the cameras in.

The way I see it, denying the committee process is about me, the conservative. But keeping the cameras out altogether is about you, the liberal. These are two separate issues entirely. Two separate questions.

We conservatives can't possibly get any more pissed off than we already are. There's nothing to lose there. What they lose, by letting America see them put the final touches on the sausage... is you. So, you're the one they're hiding from, not me. It would seem the appropriate question to ask yourself might be "Why?".

This isn't anything different than what we were talking about the other day on another thread. "Who has something to gain?" The negative publicity of broken promises is a pretty heavy burden to bear if there's no profit in it.

The reason for the rush is obvious. Obama wants it done before his State of the Union. The reason for skipping committee is obvious. They don't want anymore Republican challenges. But the reason why the cameras aren't allowed inside is a good bit more murky, wouldn't you say? They don't seem to have a coherent answer for that.

I would say that Obama wants it done so that he can move on to the more pressing issue of the economy, especially unemployment. His Ace in the Hole, after all, is, as you say, to come before the American people and say "I tried..." Which will win him kudos from unexpected places.

If the economy is a more pressing issue as you say, then why not trackle that first?

Instead, he pushes healthcare through with little or no transparency for time expediency reasons...uses the excuse that 14K a day LOSE health insurance....admits that regardless of how quickly it goes through, it wont start insuring the uninusred for 4 years...

And finally...why is it that with this "transparent" administration, you answer a question with "I would say"...which means you dont know for sure...but you assume....

I find that most interesting.

Bingo - and now Democrats are asking that themselves...


Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy.


Nelson: We should have waited on health care - News - Local - The Fremont Tribune - Fremont, Nebraska's Community Newspaper

 

[saveliberty]

Nelson was in a position to do just that, but he caved.

 

[Oldandtired]

Someone already said this but I would like to reiterrate it...

The fact that he has gone back on his word about CSPAN is a slap in the face of the liberals and the left of centers...

Most centers and rights have already expressed their displeasure with the bill...seeing it on CSPAN will not anger us any further....we already know about the back room deals......

The left denies these deals exist....

So not being on CSPAN is a direct slap in the face of the left...as it is Obama saying to them that he does not wnat them to see that the right has been accurate all along.

Yet the left blindly supports his decision to NOT put it on CSPAN.

 

[Misty]

Politicians answer to a higher power and it isn't God.

 

[Sinatra]

Someone already said this but I would like to reiterrate it...

The fact that he has gone back on his word about CSPAN is a slap in the face of the liberals and the left of centers...

Most centers and rights have already expressed their displeasure with the bill...seeing it on CSPAN will not anger us any further....we already know about the back room deals......

The left denies these deals exist....

So not being on CSPAN is a direct slap in the face of the left...as it is Obama saying to them that he does not wnat them to see that the right has been accurate all along.

Yet the left blindly supports his decision to NOT put it on CSPAN.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is true....and then the following question comes into play...

'if many that are found guilty of corruption in CHicago claim that corruption is the norm and all must deal with it...and if we see that many DO fall into it....then exactly how did a virtual unknown with no political experience become a US senator in that state?

That was why I was interested in the truth of his dealings with Rezko...and Ayers...and others. We were called racists for asking....but I really wanted to know exactly how a virtual unknown with ties to convicted criminlas such as resko was able to climb the political ladder in the most politically corrupt city in the nation....without being corrupt.

But, alas...I was a racist for asking....and I was shamed into accepting "it is irrelevant" as my answer.

If and when you can prove criminal intent by Barack Obama in either the Rezko land deal or his affiliation with Bill Ayers, then I would send you kudos for being right. But you can't. The anti-Obama blogosphere went on a witchhunt and they came up empty-handed.

In no way did I say he did anything illegal.
But when you are running for POTUS, and questions of your realtionships arise, intelligent people would question why such questions are not answered.
Unfortunately, the more he did not answer, the more he was aksed and the more the questioners were called racists for asking.

And all along he gave 3 different answers regarding ayers...and the few times he was asked why 3 different CONFLICTING answers, he would have his people respond with "it is a lame and desperate attempt by the McCain campaign to divert fornm the real issues like the economy"....and it becmae old to even ask anymore.

So I am curious....my guess is you voted for him.....so let me ask you something....which one is correct:

Week one: Ayers? I do not know him personally, but he is a man who lives in my neighborhood.

Week 2 after it weas disclosed that he knew him personally: Yes, I knew him but I had no idea of his background

Week 3 after it was disclosed that he DID know of his past: Yes, I knew of his past, but I assumed he had been rehabilitaed.

So tell me....what was the reason he gave for these three conflciting answers?

WHy did it not bother you that he obviously was hiding something?

DO you think it appropriate to vote for a candidate that is hiding something about a his relationship with a man who, as recently as 10 years ago, expressed hatred for America?

Why didn't it "bother" me? Because I look at the F.A.C.T.S, not campaign allegations and innuendo.

FactCheck.org: "He Lied" About Bill Ayers?

Obama never said Ayers was "just" a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. Obama specifically acknowledged working together with Ayers on a charitable board, and didn't deny getting some early political support from him. Here's the exchange:

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

And before another one of you shoots off that Factcheck.org is a Bill Ayers connected site, in that same link, there is this disclaimer. Believe it or not--obviously facts just get in your way anyway.

(FactCheck.org, which is nonpartisan, also receives funding from the Annenberg Foundation. But we are in no way connected to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which finished its work long before we came into being in late 2003.)

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, like the average house frau in America is going to turn off her stories and watch C-span all afternoon.

More ado-doo about nothing.

Ahhh...so lets put the onus on the American People. Sure he lied about C-SPAN...but Americans would not have watched anyway...so it does not matter that he lied.

Helluva diversion from the question of his lying. Helluva diversion.

I love the way you people toss around the word "lie" as if you really don't know the meaning of the word. How was promising (during the campaign, for God's sake) that C-Span would cover the event deemed to be a "lie"??? After all, C-Span is known to cover those things, no matter who is president! Why wouldn't he believe it could happen? How did he know at that time that this ******* health care issue would go on as long as another cold war, with hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing (which C-Span DID cover)?

A LIE?? Give...me...a...break.

How was it a "LIE" when Obama projected an unemployment rate rising to 8% and it ultimately rose to 10%???

A "LIE"??? Hardly.

Miscalculations, yes, but president's LIES can be found in my boxes of CD's covering the Bush Administration. Although he might in the future, so far, this president has not intentionally LIED about anything.

As I've said frequently on this board, I too am frustrated with a lot that has been going on. But I've also emphatically said that I WILL continue to defend Obama against the stupid, irrelevant, bullshit you assholes continue to think are so all-fired important. The more you push, the more I will push back. And I'm CERTAINLY not alone in this endeavor, although I'm sure you feel smugly confident that all of America and God are with your "side" now. Well get over yourselves. They're not.

 

[MaggieMae]

He is a lying dumb ass. He is a Chicago Politician, what did you expect?

And what is sad is his supporters either won't care or will defend him. All the while mumbling something about Bush was worse.

Non-sequitur. And Bush was a Texas millionaire oilman. Your point? They all have to come from somewhere, and each state has its own history of corruption.

Yet few quite as deep, long-lasting and prevalent as Chicago. You know its bad when New York probably isn't a serious front runner.

Surprise surprise --

North Dakota tops analysis of corruption - USATODAY.com