Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

**Vuk** · 12-19-2009, 17:30

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother”

Is it Presidential or thuggish to make threats to Senators to try to persuade them to not represent their constituents in the way that they think they would want to be represented?
I mean for Pete's sake, the guy goes to Europe and cannot take his eye's off of every woman's butt he sees. He bribes pharmaceutical companies, threatens senators, etc, etc, etc. Is anything beneath him?
People really deserve what they get electing a Chicago thug like him. It is too bad that the smart people who voted against him will have to also suffer.

**woad&fangs** · 12-19-2009, 20:26

Threat? Nixon and LBJ are laughing in their graves right now. If you don't vote with your party you risk losing party support for your legislation and party help with getting re-elected. Again, I fail to see how reminding reminding a stubborn party member of that constitutes a threat.

**Vuk** · 12-19-2009, 20:51

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

Threat? Nixon and LBJ are laughing in their graves right now. If you don't vote with your party you risk losing party support for your legislation and party help with getting re-elected. Again, I fail to see how reminding reminding a stubborn party member of that constitutes a threat.

Johnson should have been impeached. That hardly makes what Obama did any better. A party is only important as it is a group of individuals who agree on certain important things. When you disagree, then partisanism should not factor. The guy did right by doing what he thought his constituents would want. He was not reminding him of it, he was reminding him that if he crossed him he would make sure he was paid back. Thus, "keeping score". E.I. don't **** with me, because I will add you to the list. That is a threat.

**woad&fangs** · 12-19-2009, 22:33

If political parties don't matter, then what precisely was Obama "threatening" him with? Either you think Obama is going to shank him in his sleep, or you admit that the senator is a member of the democratic party because he gets advantages out of it. Advantages which can be taken away if he does not follow the party line closely enough. The senator can always go independent "to serve the interests of his constituents".

Out of curiosity, why do you feel LBJ should have been impeached? I'm not aware of anything he did which was impeachment worthy, but it also wouldn't surprise me if there was.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 12-19-2009, 22:50

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Johnson should have been impeached. That hardly makes what Obama did any better. A party is only important as it is a group of individuals who agree on certain important things. When you disagree, then partisanism should not factor. The guy did right by doing what he thought his constituents would want. He was not reminding him of it, he was reminding him that if he crossed him he would make sure he was paid back. Thus, "keeping score". E.I. don't **** with me, because I will add you to the list. That is a threat.

If that were remotely true you would still have a constitution where the runner-up became VP, and you would not have Primaries.

**Beskar** · 12-20-2009, 11:12

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

It is too bad that the smart people who voted against him will have to also suffer.

Shame that Ron Paul or Nadar got so little number of votes. Shows you how many smart people there are in America.

**Vuk** · 12-20-2009, 15:02

Originally Posted by Beskar

Shame that Ron Paul or Nadar got so little number of votes. Shows you how many smart people there are in America.

How is it smart to vote for someone who does not have a chance in France at winning when you could give your vote to the lesser of two evils and stop the greater of two evils from getting in? No, those people are just as stupid as the ones who voted for Obama in IMO.

**Beskar** · 12-20-2009, 15:36

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

How is it smart to vote for someone who does not have a chance in France at winning when you could give your vote to the lesser of two evils and stop the greater of two evils from getting in? No, those people are just as stupid as the ones who voted for Obama in IMO.

Don't worry that was done. The greater of the two evils didn't get elected.

Also, why bother with the lesser of two evils? You can just pick the best choice and if everyone just did that, ta da.

**Vuk** · 12-20-2009, 17:38

Originally Posted by Beskar

Don't worry that was done. The greater of the two evils didn't get elected.

Also, why bother with the lesser of two evils? You can just pick the best choice and if everyone just did that, ta da.

You cannot count on everyone picking the best choice, because the best choice is a matter of opinion and people are always divided (not to mention special interests). Let me ask you a question, if you had to pick one of the other, would you rather be lightly hit on the shoulder, or punched full force in the face by Kimbo? Obviously you would pick the lesser of two evils. It is basic damage control. :P You are not helping cut down on the damage though when you vote for someone who has no chance.

**Xiahou** · 01-09-2010, 01:16

An interesting article by Robert Kagan about the Obama administration and their foreign policy philosophy. Lengthy, but insightful.

**Lemur** · 01-09-2010, 04:21

Originally Posted by Xiahou

An interesting article by Robert Kagan about the Obama administration and their foreign policy philosophy. Lengthy, but insightful.

Oh for Pete's sake, if there's a three-part series of editorials about the first year of Obama foreign policy, why not link to all three, instead on singling out the negative one? The full set:

Obama's Year One: Contra

Obama's Year One: Medius

Obama's Year One: Pro