1 - 7
In response to:

Obama Showing His Vindictive Streak

AlexMJordan Wrote: Nov 01, 2013 3:43 PM
I'm late to this discussion but it should be pointed out again that Republicans did not shut down government. The House presented several bills to fully fund government except for Obamacare-- all of which were rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate. Though expected that Democrats would not pass a bill defunding Obamacare, the last bill presented before the shutdown was not asking for this, but wanted to delay the law's individual mandate while prohibiting lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care (the latter being what was in the original ACA bill). The Democrats refused to even discuss this and rejected this bill as well, bringing the shutdown to pass. Subsequently, as this article shows, the Administration has sought to make the effects of the shutdown as painful as possible, and the Democrats continued rejecting funding bills presented by Republicans related to various aspects of government. The mainstream media continued to push the narrative that Republicans were ideological and unreasonable, but in truth the President and his colleagues in Congress refused to even discuss Republican concerns about Obamacare and the runaway budget. Clearly they act this way because their ideology convinces them they know what is best for the American people and that Republicans are in the way-- therefore no discussion or negotiation is required of them.
This President doing what he does best-- blaming others for the state of affairs in Washington and refusing to take responsibility for anything. #1- Congress has a constitutional right and responsibility to present funding bills as it sees fit. They did so. The shutdown was induced by Democrats refusing to pass any of 4 bills presented that fully funded government (except for Obamacare-- on which various compromises were proposed), and by Dems absolute refusal to negotiate on any of the bills presented. #2- After the shutdown, Dems still refused to fund various bills presented that would have funded what they themselves were calling essential services. #3- The Administration-- to gain more political leverage against Republicans, was willing to increase the pain caused by the shutdown in ways that were totally unnecessary. #4- Opposition to Obamacare is fueled by those who believe it disastrous for the American economy, and who already see its negative impact and want to stop it's implementation before the damage get worse. So yes, as President Obama states, the pain of this shutdown was avoidable, and any ill effects on economy can be blamed primarily on him as leader of this country-- President Obama-- who has set the tone in Washington of partisan, blame-game, name-calling politics, as he refuses to even speak with those he is charged to co-govern with. But as a master politician, Obama sure does know how to spin things to his favor, with the mainstream media dutifully presenting his bogus narrative. IN the meantime he wants to assure everyone that the economy is recovering while continuing to ignore and refuse to address our mind-boggling debt. So the real problem says President Obama is a two week shutdown, but not the billions in runaway sending and government waste. Brilliant.
True it's deadly serious business and McCain shouldn't be playing around. But cut him a little slack-- have you watched any of these meetings? It's difficult to watch on TV even for a short while what with people belaboring their points ad nauseum and droning on and on. Imagine having to actually sit through it.
True, but Romney should have been able to sidestep Crowley and knock that one out of the park. He should have been able to point out the huge inconsistency between Obama pretending to have correctly identified the Benghazi attack as terrorism on the day after (when all he did was make vague remarks about "acts of terror" and did not specifically tie this to Benghazi) versus his Administration's concerted team effort to present the attack as spawned from a video protest gone wrong in the many days that followed. To get to the point he might have said, "On Day 2-- you said 'act of terror', but on Days 3-14-- you and your team have said the attack in Benghazi came out of a "video protest". You must forgive us Sir for concluding that your repeated references to the video protest must be what you really thought happened in Benghazi, or at least, what you wanted Americans to think happened there."
The only thing utterly "irrelevant" here is this guy and his comments. But as someone said, in their (the Administration's) view it really is irrelevant where exactly the President was during the hours long Benghazi attack; that talking points were carefully edited to remove all references to terrorism, and know-nothing Susan Rice sent out to proclaim them; and whether or not it is illegal for the IRS to target specific groups. All of this is "irrelevant" when you have a President/Administration who thinks whatever it does is right, since they are the ones doing it.
Uninformed people = Uninformed voters= Obama as President for 2 terms
To answer the headline question, Matthews won't stop with racist accusations because this thinking is deeply embedded in his liberal worldview. He needs to be called on it, but it's unlikely to change his thinking. As far as racism-- yes it exists in this world- among people of all races. But we just elected a black President-- again-- who presides over a terrible economic recovery and has misled the American people on what happened in Libya. If this country was as racist as these folks claim, how did Obama get elected twice?
1 - 7