Time for 2016 Democrats to Answer

[Duckus]

This might be the first time I have ever seen a person simply copy and paste a RNC press release....

[skinsmarydu]

Why are people bashig Obama on foreign policy? He didn't get U.S. into any wars and authorized killing of some terrorists. Does anybody think we could have done something to prevent Russia from causing trouble? Any possibility of a better outcome in Syria? Let's drop the delusional optimism - he kept us out of big messes and frankly that's quite an accomplishment.

i think Obama failed domestically much more than in foreign policy. He gets a lot of credit for the healthcare reform, but he is way too close to wall st and he did very little to change the dynamic and the trajectory of the country. Most importantly, he played the game of money in politics rather than change it. A safe bet on his part to be sure, but not good enough.

I'd normally just "like" a post like this, but I'll expand on just one of those "big messes"...

Putting Putin in a financial crisis, freezing his money and influence...neutralized that a-hole without a shot being fired. He's still messing with Ukraine, and the cease-fire was a joke, but he won't be messing with us. Win.

Wall Street is what it is, and what it was allowed to become long before he became POTUS. I can see why he went for health care first thing...the cost of it is killing us all.

[Burgold]

Hillary is untested and is going to be a major part of what will be a bad presidency.

And Hillary is an utter failure at foreign policy. A failed SecState in an abortion of an administration in terms of foreign policy.

Wait? Which is it? Is it that she's untested or a failure.  Not sure you can be both.  After all, she was in the White House for 8 years (and presumably given more responsibilties than a First Lady ought to have according to the Republicans who demonized her, was a carpetbagger Senator, and was Secretary of State.

 

I think your better tact is failure than untested. She's more experienced and has more executive experience than pretty much anyone else. At any rate, decide on your line of attack. Otherwise, it sounds like your just hurling gobs of mud at someone you don't like figuring some of the spatter will stick somewhere.

This might be the first time I have ever seen a person simply copy and paste a RNC press release....

Really, you;'ve never watched FOX News or read their web stories (they've been found guilty of doing that several times)

[alexey]

I'd normally just "like" a post like this, but I'll expand on just one of those "big messes"...

Putting Putin in a financial crisis, freezing his money and influence...neutralized that a-hole without a shot being fired. He's still messing with Ukraine, and the cease-fire was a joke, but he won't be messing with us. Win.

Wall Street is what it is, and what it was allowed to become long before he became POTUS. I can see why he went for health care first thing...the cost of it is killing us all.

I understand that the shale oil revolution is responsible for dropping oil prices, which in turn caused the financial crisis in Russia - so I am reluctant to give Obama any credit for that.

 

Both situations in Ukraine and Syria are horrible humanitarian tragedies and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.  The only "success" I would claim for our foreign policy is that we largely stayed out of them.  An extremely low bar, yet many other presidents failed even at that.

 

As a side note, I think that USA intelligence was involved in encouraging/supporting Ukrainian nationalists at least to some degree, and that Russian intelligence has been planning the Crimea/Donbass annexation for several years.  People who like conspiracies mention the shale revolution; they claim that the Ukrainan revolution happened because Donbass has tons of shale reserves that American corporations wanted to develop.  I think that goes a bit too far, but I do think that we were involved to some degree.

 

I hear you on Wall St... However, I will not accept that Obama was lacking options there.  At a minimum he could have worked against the revolving door between Wall St. and oversight agencies.  He could have constructed a somewhat different narrative about the financial crisis.  Or <gasp> the DoJ could have tried to put somebody in jail.  Or whistle blowers could have been treated differently.  Or how about a deeper post-oversight review of TARP...

 

Although I should mention the Credit CARD Act of 2009 - that was an important accomplishment.

[88Comrade2000]

The fact noone went to jail for the 2008 crash; is one failiure big failure of OBama.  The fact there is still, to big to fail; is a big failure of OBama.  If it is to big to fail; then it is to big and should be broken up.

 

 

As for Hillary, how much was she really responsible for Obama's foreign policy in the first term.  I think Obama did what he wanted and she just executed what he wanted.  O course, we will know for sure after her election in 2016.    My guess, she will have learned from her husband's tenure and what worked or didn't during her time with Obama.

[@DCGoldPants]

Reading the interwebs today, the Dems could get away with just keeping their traps shut. I'd put money on them finding a way on hurting themselves though.

 

You have Boehner and McConnell who apparently haven't been communicating with each other in a few weeks. McConnell now wants a clean DHS bill with no immigration stuff.

 

and Boehner is tweeting

 

Speaker John Boehner @SpeakerBoehner

“The president signed away up to 42,000 good jobs” – @csgazette on #KeystoneXL veto j.mp/1BcDvLY

 

Why stop at 42K? Might as well said "A Kagillion Jobs".

[Larry]

The fact noone went to jail for the 2008 crash; is one failiure big failure of OBama.

Now, now. It does appear that there has actually been one person from Wall Street punished for something they did. The Daily Show covered it. (It's a real hoot.)

And Justice for Some  (Video doesn't seem to work on my desktop.  But it does on my tablet.)

And Justice for Some - Financial Victims Unit

[Wrong Direction]

So 31 replies in and not one person wants to talk about why those scandals mentioned in the story aren't actually scandals worthy of media attention at all?

 

This belongs in the long lost liberal media thread, but I can't find it.

 

In any case...why argue the merits when you can just act like someone's grandpa, tell the right to toughen up and stop whining, and move on? Yup. Nothing to see here. smh

[Corcaigh]

Maybe there is nothing to see here ... Fox News ran multiple live interviews with Giuliani on his 'Obama hates America' claim. 

 

Maybe everyone, including Fox News saw the Giuliani story as being more newsworthy?

 

Or is Fox News now part of the liberal media conspiracy?

[Wrong Direction]

Fox News!

 

FOX NEWS!

 

FOX NEWS!!!!!

[TheGoodBits]

So 31 replies in and not one person wants to talk about why those scandals mentioned in the story aren't actually scandals worthy of media attention at all?

 

 

 

Perhaps if you had offered commentary or opinion rather than just a cut/paste from an RNC email, people would have been more likely to discuss the subject. 

[Larry]

So 31 replies in and not one person wants to talk about why those scandals mentioned in the story aren't actually scandals worthy of media attention at all?

Which "scandals"? All I see are some sound bites, trying real hard to look like scandals.

But here, I'll bite:

Let's pick the one that actually, to me, tries to look like an actual scandal:

 

And, of course, nowhere in the frenzy of the past few days has there any mention of the first person to question President Obama’s roots or patriotism: Hillary Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee-in-waiting. In the 2008 primary campaign, she wouldn’t take a stand on the president’s religion. Her campaign sought to highlight his “lack of American roots” (their phrase).

 

OK, so what we have here, is an RNC press release in which the RNC (and an ES troll) is whining about bias because: 

 

1)  Rudy Giuliani, at a Republican fundraiser, featuring a Republican Presidential candidate, made the announcement that the President of the United States hates America. 

 

2)  And the media paid attention to it. 

 

3)  And this is biased, because in the last week, there hasn't been a single mention of the fact that, 7 years ago, Hillary "wouldn’t take a stand on the president’s religion". 

 

Well, let's take a look at this link to this seven year old story which the biased media isn't paying as much attention to, as the RNC thinks they should.  Let's follow the link. 

 

Oh, goody.  It's a Politico article.  The lead-in: 

 

A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question.

 

And their quote, supposedly from 60 Minutes, of what they're talking about.  (Well, actually, they had to throw in a disclaimer, and say it's "in CBS's version".  that way they get to kinda imply that it's not true, without so much as claiming that there's any other "version".) 

 

“You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.

“It's just scurrilous…?” Kroft inquired.

“Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time,” Clinton said.

 

 

OK, so here we have the RNC (and an ES troll) trying to claim that the media is being unfair to poor Ruddy.  Because, when he said, (last week?) that the President of the United States hates America, the evil liberal media paid attention to what he said, instead of paying attention to a seven-year-old interview, in which Hillary Clinton said the exact opposite of what the RNC claims she said. 

 

Of, to make my point even briefer: 

 

The link which the RNC used, to "support" their claim, says that the RNC is lying. 

 

(And that's even before you get to the fact that they're complaining that the media is paying attention to recent news, instead of seven year old news.) 

 

----------

 

Now, your turn. 

 

You've complained that nobody is talking about these "scandals". 

 

Please.  Tell us which of the "scandals" you cut and pasted an RNC press release over, that you think is more important than Republican fundraisers making the claim that the President of the United States "doesn't love America". 

Fox News!

 

FOX NEWS!

 

FOX NEWS!!!!!

Do you plan on actually responding to his point?

[Predicto]

So 31 replies in and not one person wants to talk about why those scandals mentioned in the story aren't actually scandals worthy of media attention at all?

 

This belongs in the long lost liberal media thread, but I can't find it.

 

In any case...why argue the merits when you can just act like someone's grandpa, tell the right to toughen up and stop whining, and move on? Yup. Nothing to see here. smh

 

Your original post wasn't about scandals.  It was about whining.   It got the response it deserved.

[Slateman]

There has been nothing liberal or progressive about Obama's foreign policy or his domestic record on privacy.

Substituting soldiers with drones... yawn.

The last thing this country needs is the foreign policy employed by both Bush and Obama. It's not a liberal or conservative problem. It's a problem of understanding the culture in the Middle East and South Asia.

Thats pretty much it.

Bush's foreign policy was vastly superior. It was light years ahead of what Obama has accomplished

[Burgold]

Your original post wasn't about scandals.  It was about whining.   It got the response it deserved.

Yeah, if he had posted an article about what the Dems were doing instead of a "woe is me. Everyone picks on the Elephant in the room!" article from the GOP... the results would likely be different. It'd at least be about the issue(s)

[Slateman]

So 31 replies in and not one person wants to talk about why those scandals mentioned in the story aren't actually scandals worthy of media attention at all?

This belongs in the long lost liberal media thread, but I can't find it.

In any case...why argue the merits when you can just act like someone's grandpa, tell the right to toughen up and stop whining, and move on? Yup. Nothing to see here. smh

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity

[Predicto]

Thats pretty much it.

Bush's foreign policy was vastly superior. It was light years ahead of what Obama has accomplished

 

Wait, what?

 

Bush gets an F, the lowest possible grade.   This is the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz foreign policy in a nutshell.

 

 

Obama may only be getting a D minus in cleaning up all that mess, but Bush's foreign policy wasn't superior to anyone or anything.

[Slateman]

Obama has cleaned up nothing. He's made a poor situation much worse. Ironically Bush predicted this.

[Predicto]

Obama has cleaned up nothing. He's made a poor situation much worse. Ironically Bush predicted this.

 

Who is worse?  The guy who takes a huge crap all over the floor or the guy who does a poor job cleaning it up?

 

Ironically, I predicted that Bush would blame someone else for his terribleness.

[Larry]

Thats pretty much it.

Bush's foreign policy was vastly superior. It was light years ahead of what Obama has accomplished

Please list for us, Bush's light years of accomplishments, with his foreign policy.

Obama has cleaned up nothing. He's made a poor situation much worse. Ironically Bush predicted this.

You mean. other then ending the worst economy since the Great Depression, ending two wars, Successfully keeping us mostly out of several Mideast revolutions, (in fact, actually helping the citizens of those countries overthrow their own dictators)?

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity

Never make a point when you can throw out a sound bite.

[Corcaigh]

Fox News!

 

FOX NEWS!

 

FOX NEWS!!!!!

 

OK then. You bemoan a lack of response and this is how you react?

 

You were just trolling in your original post.

[Larry]

This obviously proves that ES is simply overrun by die hard liberals who refuse to notice reality.

[alexey]

Pick the strongest point, state your case, and let's talk about it.

For example, if I was trying to make a case that media has a conservstive bias:

Bush administration lied to get public support for war. Media didn't talk about it. Therefore Media has a conservstive bias. This is scandalous.

Or: GOP keeps denying climate change. Media doesn't talk about it. Therefore Media has a conservative bias. This is scandalous.

[88Comrade2000]

Thats pretty much it.

Bush's foreign policy was vastly superior. It was light years ahead of what Obama has accomplished

 

Papa Bush.   Baby Bush and the neocon cabal that ran his admistration, is at least responsible for the foreign policy problems in the middle east.  By taking out Saddam, Bush laid the sowed the seeds that has given us today's ISIS and has allowed Iran to become stronger in that vacuum.  A buffer destroyed for what?  Control over oil? Hell, due to techonology; we can get our own oil now.

 

As now see how terrorism is starting to affect the entire world; Papa Bush would've focused the world in 2001 to defeat.  Baby Bush, used it as a pretext to invade Iraq.

 

Obama's foreign policy has turned to **** but his **** was born out the mess George W Bush  created.

[alexey]

Front page Washington Post:

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html?hpid=z2

 

 

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

 

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

 

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

 

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

 

In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

...