Morris: Obama doesn’t have a clue

[Gill]

Epic Fail on Morris' part. First, anyone and EVERYONE knows that this economic downturn occurred during the campaign, so the "into which his policies thrust us" negates pretty much anything else he has to say.

He's an opportunistic douche.

You might have something if it was say Maureen Dowd. Even Carville's criticism is given merit. Morris actually refers to Obama's "socialism" but then writes a column scaring people by saying that Obama plans to cancel Medicare. WTF? Why would a Socialist cancel the single most socialist thing our government does.

There is incompetence on display. It's Morris's.

Dowd IS ripping him.... Leftists at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground are ripping him.... why can't Morris rip him ??

A recent article by Dowd:

One little hole a mile down on the ocean floor, so deep it seems like hell spewing up its sulfurous smoke, has turned the thrilling saga of “The One” into the gurgling horror of “The Abyss.” (Thank goodness James Cameron, the director of “The Abyss,” came to Washington Tuesday to help the administration figure out how to cap the BP well. What’s next? Sending down the Transformers and Megan Fox?)

With as much as 34 million gallons of oil inking the Gulf of Mexico, “Yes we can” has been downgraded to “Will we ever?”

Doesn't look good when the base turns on you.

 

[Telecaster]

Dick Morris? I'm sorry, but there is no indication much different would have happened under republican leadership. Silly comments like this by Morris neither help nor enlighten. It's just partisan silliness meant to fire up the base. It should not be taken seriously. Without the silliness, let's discuss what should have been done that wasn't, and what was done that hurt or helped. This would be more productive.

He hasn't been able to lead a movement to save Gulf shoreline. And none of his policies have accomplished what they set out to. Only Wall Street has benefitted. ...Should we consider that is better than nothing?!

But to really appreciate what this President is capable of, let's just wait and see his second two years in office.

 

[tryreading]

Morris: Obama doesn’t have a clue
LINK> Morris: Obama doesn

This is what happens when the press does not vet the president.
It happened when the protected Clinton and propagandized for him, now we have an even bigger problem.

And our enemies around the world are starting to buzz like a hornets nest. They smell weakness and opportunity on a scale they could have only fantasized about a mere 3 years ago.

Now is the time they have been waiting for. And they are chanting Yes We Can...



.

Every time I hear Dick Morris in the background, I'm thinking it's an old Maude episode. He sounds just like Bea Arthur.

Anyway, I lost all respect for him when he was giving his regular predictions leading up to the last Presidential election. He said the spread between Obama and McCain was not so far apart, and Nader would get about 2%, so the election would be very close. He was tracking as straight as a wrecked tricycle. Haven't taken him seriously since then.

 

[Goyboy]

Uh, pardon me for asking, but isn't this thread's topic supposed to be Dick Morris' commentary about President Obama? Why all the discussion about previous Presidents?

FWIW, it doesn't matter what previous Presidents did. What matters here and now is what the current President has and hasn't done.

Do I blame President Obama for the ecological catastrophe taking place in the Gulf of Mexico? No, I do not. After all, President Obama isn't a wizard who has a crystal ball that can tell him what is happening anywhere and at any time.

Is President Obama as clueless as Dick Morris claims? Probably, because all Presidents can be presented with problems that have never been encountered before, and when such problems do occur, the sitting President is bound to be clueless for awhile.

U.S. citizens tend to expect their President to be god-like in the ability to solve problems. Then when the President fails to live up to such an expectation, the President is criticized. In the USA the President is Scapegoat-in-Chief, no matter which political party that the President belongs to.

By the way, no President can raise or lower taxes without Congress passing bills that raise or lower taxes. No Presidential Administration can spend money without Congress passing bills that allocate the money to be spent. Plus, certain kinds of government regulation require an act of Congress. Thus, I consider it silly to blame the President for things that Congress is responsible for.

 

[Boo Radley]

He hasn't been able to lead a movement to save Gulf shoreline. And none of his policies have accomplished what they set out to. Only Wall Street has benefitted. ...Should we consider that is better than nothing?!

But to really appreciate what this President is capable of, let's just wait and see his second two years in office.

I think only God cold have saved the coast, sadly. As for his policies, some of which I was not all for, I wonder what the complaint would have been he not bailout anyone out? There is a real possibility that things could have been much worse. But one thing I do know, if jobs would have been lost due to the government not doing something, and that certainly could have happened, the outrage would be the same or worse.

So, I'm not sure ONLY Walstreet benefitted. You may well be wrong about that.

 

[Goyboy]

But to really appreciate what this President is capable of, let's just wait and see his second two years in office.

Sure. Two years is plenty of time for more disasters.
:2rofll:

 

[obvious Child]

No problem. Do you think republicans would not have bailed out the auto industry, or Walstreet, or spent money on a stimulus? These were concerete actions taken. What actions do you think shouldn't have bene taken and what actions would you take?

I'm going to have to agree with this. Bush bailed out the auto industry first and did TARP. The notion that the Republicans would have let the banking sector go are insane. Furthermore, the GOP would have spent like drunken sailors if they were in charge when unemployment hit 10%. We saw how they spent when they had a good economy. I cannot fathom just how much they would have spent during a bad economy. And the idea that the GOP would have curtailed the fed when the TED rate went to hell and money velocity dropped below 1 seems highly unlikely.

Honestly, the GOP would have done largely the same things.

And what people like Zimmer fail to realize is that there are no good ways out of a financial recession.

 

[jujuman13]

Not since some point in the GWBush admin you mean... like the vast majority of todays "Independents".


No, the real problem is the control of our government by Special Interest groups; namely, publically traded corporations. It's SIGs that dictate what laws are enacted and how our tax dollars are spent.


Why do cons trot out Fanny and Freddy first instead of AIG and the investment houses like Goldman and the mortgage companies like Countrywide?


Had you earned a MEcon or PHD in economics you'd probably agree with the majority of the erudite.


It's not being left unattended.

Not for lack of opportunity, I mean it was debated for more than a year.


You mean the "repugnicans" don't you? After all, you did say you hated both parties... :doh
I guess in all of your news watching and researching you never ran across numbers like; 788 republican amendments were thrown at the Bill (most were just to stall the process) and 161 of them were adopted.

I'm afraid your targeting is a bit off.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.


For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. Remember?

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills. He signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)




If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, when Obama says he inherited a huge deficit, what he is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."