Patterico's Pontifications

5/25/2010

Unflappable, Vol. 2

Filed under: Obama — DRJ @ 3:30 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Senate Republicans have punctured the myth of President Obama as cool, calm, and in control:

“President Barack Obama battled with Senate Republicans in a tense closed-door meeting Tuesday, facing tough criticism from his GOP adversaries — including John McCain — on issues ranging from health care to border security.

Senators and other sources inside the meeting described the gathering as “testy” and “direct” — and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) accused Obama of acting two-faced by asking for GOP support on regulatory reform only to push forward with a bill supported mainly by Democrats. Others felt that the meeting may have made already tense relations between the two parties even worse.

“The more he talked, the more he got upset,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said. “He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

Read the whole thing, as the Senators show they aren’t hesitant to confront the President about his policies.

H/T TimesDisliker.

– DRJ

55 Comments

  1. Maybe they have O’s number, but the question is whether they will punch it or not. My suspicion is yes, given the treatment that Bennet got in Utah all GOP senators are looking over their shoulder at the revolting GOP base (I probably mean that differently than Senators like McCain, Graham, and Snowe do).

    Comment by iconoclast (c91a7c) — 5/25/2010 @ 3:37 pm

  2. Greetings:

    Narcissism is its own reward.

    Comment by 11B40 (7add9f) — 5/25/2010 @ 3:44 pm

  3. the First Biotch is getting punked…. and its about time.

    so much for the vaunted intellect of Ear Leader. :-D

    Comment by redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:08 pm

  4. It is about F@#$king time.

    Comment by BT (74cbec) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:21 pm

  5. Could be Obama just doesn’t have the temperament for the give and take of representative government. Messiahs are notoriously touchy and short tempered.

    If Obama is going to get testy every time someone disagrees with his policies, and if he continues to mistake political opposition for personal animosity, then his remaining time in office will prove as unpleasant for him as it has for us.

    Comment by ropelight (4234c9) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:30 pm

  6. To this thin-skinned empty suit, all opposition is a personal affront, and racist.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:32 pm

  7. Yeah, I totally believe them, too, because they said so. What a joke. “Direct,” and yet, “two-faced” at the same time. BTW there is mostly democrats, so any bill that gets pushed through is going to be supported mainly by democrats by definition. That is an idiotic reason to call Obama two-faced.

    Comment by Chris Hooten (b90d2b) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:34 pm

  8. That is an idiotic reason to call Obama two-faced.
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 5/25/2010 @ 4:34 pm

    I think the middle-finger head scratch alone qualifies him as two-faced. Everything else is just confirmatory. Asking for GOP support without even nodding towards their positions is either two-faced or arrogant. You apparently pick arrogant. Your choice.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:41 pm

  9. “BTW there is mostly democrats, so any bill that gets pushed through is going to be supported mainly by democrats by definition. That is an idiotic reason to call Obama two-faced.”

    Chrissy – Read carefully. Was that the stated reason.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:42 pm

  10. Also, a bill with 100% Republican support and 50% Democrat support gets through. Your “by definition” is as flawed as your usual reasoning.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:46 pm

  11. It was a horrible political decision to have this meeting in this forum.

    Obama should have realized that most of the Senators in the room know him primarily as a result of his short-tenured status a junior Senator of little accomplishment. There is going to be little, if any deference to him as POTUS in this environment. Behind closed doors on the Senate turf is the kind of “leveling of the field” that would embolden one or several Senators to challenge him in a way they might have been reluctant to do so in a more nuetral setting. Very bad idea.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (dd1bdb) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:49 pm

  12. and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) accused Obama of acting two-faced by asking for GOP support on regulatory reform only to push forward with a bill supported mainly by Democrats.

    Just like I said. Two faced because he pushed forward with a bill supported mainly by Democrats. No matter what the issue is, he will ask the Republicans for support, but will put through a bill with mostly Democratic support because we have mostly Democrats. Duh. Sometimes these Republicans act like they think they are in charge.

    Comment by Chris Hooten (b90d2b) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:50 pm

  13. Stashiu3 – Milky nostril squirts!

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:50 pm

  14. Chris Hooten, you really are missing the point. Intentionally, I’ve little doubt.

    Obama – based on absolutely nothing he’d ever actually accomplished and in fact 100% opposite of his actual small history in Congress – claimed that he was going to be the one that changed the tone in Washington with bipartisanship.

    What the reality of Obama is that he does not take criticism, does not listen to the concerns of the other side of the aisle and is not any real change in tone other than a change for less bipartisanship.

    Obama has shown on every single theme, claim or promise from the campaign that his actions are in fact the opposite.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:57 pm

  15. Sometimes these Republicans act like they think they are in charge.
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 5/25/2010 @ 4:50 pm

    Ah, yet another version of “I won!” I hope you remember this after the November elections (don’t worry, I’ll remind you. Trust me.)

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2010 @ 4:58 pm

  16. But it is the Republicans who are inhibiting the bipartisanship, not Obama. He has tried to work with them repeatedly, while the Republicans have done everything within their power to prevent any progress of any kind from occurring. They have been dragging their feet on virtually everything.

    Comment by Chris Hooten (b90d2b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:06 pm

  17. Chris Hooten uses the Democrats’ definition of “bipartisanship” which is to condemn Republicans for not adopting Democrats’ policy positions.

    It fools no one but Democrats.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:07 pm

  18. They are not in charge! It is their responsibility to work with those that are in the majority to get the work done that needs to be done. Their job is not to inhibit any kind of progress whatsoever on any issue at all. However, it appears that is what the Republicans are doing. Bipartisanship requires compromise, something the current Republicans don’t seem very good at, unfortunately.

    Comment by Chris Hooten (b90d2b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:11 pm

  19. They have been dragging their feet on virtually everything.
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 5/25/2010 @ 5:06 pm

    By not being allowed inside closed-door meetings that set policy? Okay, pull the other one.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:16 pm

  20. Obama-partisanship…My way, or the highway.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (bd3d6c) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:18 pm

  21. By not being allowed to read a bill before having to vote on it?

    By not being allowed to know what is even supposed to be in the bill until after it passes?

    By not being allowed to insist that the bill even be completely written before a vote is called for?

    You are truly a piece of work. Now, can a bill pass if every GOP member votes for it and a minority of Democrats (say, 15 in the Senate and 80 in the House to be safe) also vote for it? How’s that “by definition” working for you now?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:24 pm

  22. First Chris writes: Their job is not to inhibit any kind of progress whatsoever on any issue at all.

    Proving that this following line – “Bipartisanship requires compromise, something the current Republicans don’t seem very good at, unfortunately.” is a line of crap that Chris does neither understand nor believe.

    You can’t write both of those lines, Chris. They are mutually contradictory. What you’ve shown is that you don’t understand what compromise is.

    Not a f**king clue, Chris. You have not one f**king clue.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:25 pm

  23. To this thin-skinned empty suit, all opposition is a personal affront, and racist.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/25/2010 @ 4:32 pm

    No, just a personal affront to his Ineffable Greatness. “Racist” is just a convenient huge club to use. Could any better example of what happens when someone with personal parental rejection issues (and he’s got them, in a big way, times two) gets a lot of power be walking around for everyone to see?

    I feel kind of bad for psychoanalyzing the guy but his utterly bizarre (there’s no other word for it) behavior as President almost demands it. He may project a (what we are seeing now is razor-thin) veneer of calm leadership but the reality is a pathetically insecure man who clearly puts himself first and makes everything about him: he has no business leading a nation.

    Comment by no one you know (14208b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:26 pm

  24. oh Chris Hooten, stop this nonsense!

    But it is the Republicans who are inhibiting the bipartisanship, not Obama. He has tried to work with them repeatedly, while the Republicans have done everything within their power to prevent any progress of any kind from occurring. They have been dragging their feet on virtually everything.

    This is petty and small. Just because the R’s have not agreed with the President, does not mean they are willfully preventing any progress in bipartisanship. These are not mutually inclusive.

    If anything they are being true to their politics, and more importantly, listening to and acting on the expressed will of the voters whom they work for and represent.

    How does this work for you:

    But it is Obama who is inhibiting the bipartisanship, not Republicans. They have tried to work with him repeatedly, while the President has done everything within his power to prevent any progress of any kind from occurring. He has been dragging his feet on virtually everything.

    Comment by Dana (1e5ad4) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:27 pm

  25. oh Chris Hooten, stop this nonsense!
    Comment by Dana — 5/25/2010 @ 5:27 pm

    It’s what he does. You might as well tell the sun not to rise. Just sayin’ ;)

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:29 pm

  26. Messiahs are notoriously touchy and short tempered.

    Well at least the impersonators are…

    Comment by Dana (1e5ad4) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:29 pm

  27. Well at least the impersonators are…

    Comment by Dana — 5/25/2010 @ 5:29 pm

    Heh heh heh. “I. Am. OZZZZ!”

    Comment by no one you know (14208b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:30 pm

  28. Chris Hooten, call the mother ship for further instructions. Your spinny talking points are about a year behind the times. Did you accidently pick up an old newspaper with a booger on it while cleaning out the backseat of your car? I have truly lost patience with this kind of ridiculous crap. That is all.

    Comment by elissa (f72150) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:31 pm

  29. On a completely unrelated topic, there was a troll here that claimed I was making up stuff when I had pointed out that the Lancet had retracted the MMR link to autism study. I wish I could find that thread, I’ve been searching with all kinds of terms.

    The author of that study has had his medical license revoked this week.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:36 pm

  30. Soros is having him recycle the old talking-points since the current ones have gotten no traction at all.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (bd3d6c) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:36 pm

  31. Oh, BTW, speaking of politics and guys who supported Teh One, a judge in Detroit sentenced Kwame Kilpatrick to 1-1/2 to 5 years for breaking the terms of his probation.
    He asked for clemancy, and the judge responded:
    That ship has sailed!

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (bd3d6c) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:40 pm

  32. I wish I could find that thread, I’ve been searching with all kinds of terms.
    Comment by SPQR — 5/25/2010 @ 5:36 pm

    Is it this one?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:42 pm

  33. Until recently, Wakefield was working in Austin.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:43 pm

  34. Stashiu3, damn – you da man.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:46 pm

  35. Hmmm, I thought there was one more recent than that … but with my kooky memory who knows.

    Thanks Stashiu3.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:48 pm

  36. You’re welcome. Nothing more recent though with the word lancet or autism. I searched them separately and came up with the same thread.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2010 @ 5:54 pm

  37. #23 I feel kind of bad for psychoanalyzing the guy but his utterly bizarre (there’s no other word for it) behavior as President almost demands it. He may project a (what we are seeing now is razor-thin) veneer of calm leadership but the reality is a pathetically insecure man who clearly puts himself first and makes everything about him

    no one you know, don’t feel bad. My own thought is that anyone who has had a punk supervisor at a minimum wage job, or had an unqualified manager frustrated at how nobody respects him, or a client who doesn’t get the win-win, has probably done that exact pychoanalysis.;-)

    Comment by TimesDisliker (f3d092) — 5/25/2010 @ 6:18 pm

  38. Chris Hooten #16 – there has been genuine bipartisanship – in *opposition* to Obama’s ideas …

    #18 – the GOP in the House are doing what they are supposed to do – they are being representative of the rational part of this country …

    Comment by Alasdair (4bb42a) — 5/25/2010 @ 6:29 pm

  39. The hole!

    You plug it up!

    Comment by happyfeet (c8caab) — 5/25/2010 @ 6:30 pm

  40. #39, funny.

    My response would be “whose hole Mr President?”

    Comment by HeavenSent (a9126d) — 5/25/2010 @ 7:05 pm

  41. NPR had bit more about Corker. Priceless!

    When Obama appealed for bipartisanship on legislation in the six months remaining before Election Day, freshman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) confronted him, the senator later told reporters.

    “I told him I thought there was a degree of audacity in him even showing up today after what happened with financial regulation,” Corker said after the meeting. “I asked him how he was able to reconcile that duplicity, coming in today to see us.”

    Four people who were in the room said Obama bristled and defended his administration’s handling of negotiations. Republicans have long complained that Democrats are using heavy-handed tactics to push though Obama’s agenda.

    On the way out, Obama approached Corker, according to the senator, who had been sitting just to the president’s right, to press his case. Corker repeated his.

    “I mentioned that there was a very large disconnect between what he was saying and his actions,” Corker told reporters.

    Comment by Dana (1e5ad4) — 5/25/2010 @ 8:07 pm

  42. but with my kooky memory who knows.

    so, you are “imdw” too?

    that would certainly explain the long involved threads….. :-D

    Comment by redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/25/2010 @ 8:42 pm

  43. Anyone can appear calm when under the delusion they can make the oceans to obey and that everybody has been “waiting for him”. When cracks in the delusion let reality interrupt, not so pleasant. Think Captain Quegg with the steel balls in his hand.

    As said before, whether it was the obscene gestures, suggesting that Palin was a “lipstick wearing pig”, his interchanges with McCain and Ryan on the healthcare summit, I think we know he is a spiteful, angry, and mean person.

    Comment by MD in Philly (cb8efe) — 5/25/2010 @ 10:16 pm

  44. well, at least you didn’t say “man” instead of “person”…
    and i believe part of the problem is that he has no balls, in hand or otherwise. :-D

    Comment by redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/25/2010 @ 10:20 pm

  45. 39.The hole!

    You plug it up!

    Comment by happyfeet — 5/25/2010 @ 6:30 pm

    40.#39, funny.

    My response would be “whose hole Mr President?”

    Comment by HeavenSent — 5/25/2010 @ 7:05 pm

    – My response would be “You are the ‘hole’, Mr. President.”

    Comment by Icy Texan (380c78) — 5/26/2010 @ 12:48 am

  46. The Cork

    Two Arab terrorists are in a locker room taking a shower after their bomb making class, when one notices the other has a huge cork stuck in his butt.

    If you do not mind me saying,” said the second, “that cork looks very uncomfortable. Why do you not take it out?”

    I regret I cannot,” lamented the first Arab. “It is permanently stuck in my butt.”

    “I do not understand,” said the other.

    The first Arab says, “I was walking along the beach and I tripped over an oil lamp. There was a puff of smoke, and then a huge old man in an American flag attire with a white beard and top hat came boiling out.

    He said, “I am Uncle Sam, the Genie. I can grant you one wish.”

    I said, “No shit?”
    :-D

    Comment by redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/26/2010 @ 1:16 am

  47. Doesn’t Obama have a higher approval rating than ANY Republican? What does that tell you?

    Comment by Chris Hooten (977a67) — 5/26/2010 @ 1:09 pm

  48. What does that tell you?
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 5/26/2010 @ 1:09 pm

    It tells me that your subject-change is an admission you were completely wrong earlier. As usual. Enjoy your day.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/26/2010 @ 1:16 pm

  49. Everything that is popular is also good, is that it? Is O’Reilly, therefore, better than Olbermann?

    Comment by Icy Texan (97878b) — 5/26/2010 @ 1:17 pm

  50. IT… Well, YES!

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (39b1d4) — 5/26/2010 @ 1:23 pm

  51. Sorry, Drew. Just trying to wrap my brain around Hootenian logic.

    Comment by Icy Texan (97878b) — 5/26/2010 @ 1:39 pm

  52. But I thought the majority of Americans were for Republicans, and their ideals and morals? I guess not? How is that going to work in an election? Most of the recent primary elections have had a far higher Democratic turnout than Republican. Look at Rand Paul, for instance, he would have come out third. What happened to “angry America?” Or that overwhelming “tea-partier” effect?

    Comment by Chris Hooten (977a67) — 5/26/2010 @ 2:00 pm

  53. “But I thought…”
    Arguing facts that are not in evidence.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (39b1d4) — 5/26/2010 @ 2:19 pm

  54. I am almost sorry I missed the mendoucheity of Hootenany. I see some things never change.

    Comment by JD (ffe6ea) — 5/26/2010 @ 2:22 pm

  55. Most of the recent primary elections have had a far higher Democratic turnout than Republican.

    – The Republicans were probably at work.

    Comment by Icy Texan (d2b0bb) — 5/27/2010 @ 3:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3476 secs.