McConnell invites Obama to GOP lunch; president says no, thanks

Objective Voice said:

Are you then calling Congress a bunch of domestic terrorist? Or are you saying that the President shouldn't talk to irrational people? Pick your words very carefully, my friend.

Click to expand...

My interpretation is that he's calling the republicans "foriegn leaders" and since Obama promised to meet with foriegn leaders, he would be breaking that promise if he doesn't meet with the repubs.

GPS_Flex said:

Recess canceled; Senate to work next week on debt


This is ridiculous. The President decides his fundraisers are more important than sticking around to work on this issue after he lambasted congress for not working hard enough on this issue.

In response, the Senate cancels their scheduled holiday recess to deal with this issue and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid schedules the Senate to debate authorization of Libya? Are you friggin kidding me???

I can’t believe these idiots. Standard & Poor is going to drop the U.S. credit rating of AAA to D if it defaults but Harry Reid is scheduling a debate on Libya instead of the debt limit crisis??? Are these morons intentionally trying to destroy America?

The Libya issue is stupid. The President either broke the law a long time ago or he didn’t. It is preposterous of them to think a bill that gives him authorization now (after the fact) is more important than the debt limit crisis.

I just can’t believe the insanity of these idiots.

Click to expand...

Has the Senate even put a budget proposal on the table?

Objective Voice said:

Are you then calling Congress a bunch of domestic terrorist? Or are you saying that the President shouldn' talk to irrational people? Pick your words very carefully, my friend.

Click to expand...

It's very clear what I said. Maybe you can answer the question:

Why would Obama say he'd meet with country leaders who sponsor and are connected to terrorist, but not meet with Republicans in Congress? No you pick your words very carefully... friend.

Objective Voice said:

Did he not call for civility among both parties during that speech? Yes or no will do.

Click to expand...

There's nothing uncivil about No Thank You.

So was McConnell being "civil" when he said that his only goal is to make sure Obama is not re-elected?

FilmFestGuy said:

There's nothing uncivil about No Thank You.

So was McConnell being "civil" when he said that his only goal is to make sure Obama is not re-elected?

Click to expand...

That's just plain old politics. Nothing personal... just business.

Ockham said:

It's very clear what I said. Maybe you can answer the question:

Why would Obama say he'd meet with country leaders who sponsor and are connected to terrorist, but not meet with Republicans in Congress? No you pick your words very carefully... friend.

Click to expand...

If what you said was clear, it wouldn't have been misunderstood. And your latest post doesn nothing to clarify because you have yet to explain why BO's promise to meet with foreign leaders applies to members of the republican party. All you did was ask a question, and a question is not an explanation.

Ockham said:

That's just plain old politics. Nothing personal... just business.

Click to expand...

To partisans, "Thanks, but no thanks" is not civil. "You pal around with terrorists" is civil :lol:

Objective Voice said:

Oh, come now. VP Biden, who was assigned by the President to speak on his behalf during these negotiations, has been in continuous dialog w/the Republican party leadership for well over a month! And all the GOP has managed to agree on is more spending cuts and nothing else.

Click to expand...

I guess you slept through Obama’s first deficit commission, the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Using the Obama daughter’s homework comparison, Obama essentially asked someone else to do his homework for him and when it was done, he decided he didn’t like it and asked Biden to do his homework for him. He has waited until the last minute (even his 10 year old daughter is smarter than that) and now he is refusing to “pull an all-nighter” to get this issue resolved.

Objective Voice said:

So, here it is after Cantor walks out of negotiations and the President tells Congress to stop acting like kids and to do their jobs, and public talks both domestically and internationally has heated up warning of the implications of not raising the debt ceiling, only then do we have GOP Senators finally deciding they want to "talk" w/the President. They had their chance to negotiate in good faith, but instead their party comes up with a no tax pledge. Way to keep that door to compromise open. :roll:

Click to expand...

Joe Biden himself said that the talks were only intended for each side to report back to their leaders and Republicans made it clear from the very beginning that they wouldn’t vote to raise taxes and would require massive spending cuts as any part of a debt ceiling increase so it’s rather disingenuous of you to claim that the Republicans “had their chance to negotiate in good faith, but instead their party comes up with a no tax pledge” because both sides have been clear about their positions from the very beginning.

It is also important to note that higher taxes won’t reduce the deficit but spending cuts will. Obama and the Democrats are already demanding spending increases as a part of the debt limit increase and history has shown us that tax increases (as well as debt limit increases) just lead to more government spending. If Obama was serious about this issue he would sit down and negotiate, drop his demands for spending increases and drop his demands for tax increases because neither reduced the debt.

Objective Voice said:

You know, I get so tired of hearing people complain about the President not taking a leadership role in these budget talks. It's not the President's job to do these things. That's Congress' responsibility. They're the ones who control the country's purse strings, i.e., appropriations.

Again...process, ladies and gentlemen. Understand it and you'll understand why McConnell's "invite" was bogus.

Click to expand...

It is amusing to see you reveal your ignorance of “the process” while chastising the rest of us. You didn’t answer my challenge when I asked for examples of leadership from this President so I will assume you have none. Allow me to educate you a bit on “the process”:

United States federal budget

Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in some new presidents' first year when previous president belonged to a different party.

Click to expand...

§ 1105. Budget contents and submission to Congress

(a) On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year. Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in each budget the following:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the laughs Objective Voice.

Prof. Peabody said:

Has the Senate even put a budget proposal on the table?

Click to expand...

Nope. The Democrat led Senate isn’t even allowing the Budget Committee to meet (or any other committee that might develop a plan) and Harry Reid won’t even allow a budget markup to be scheduled during the week the Senate voted to forgo its scheduled holiday recess to work on the budget/debt issues.


The goons aren’t interested in getting anything done, they are playing pure partisan politics and risking the welfare of the U.S. in the process.

Objective Voice said:

Did he not call for civility among both parties during that speech? Yes or no will do.

Click to expand...

Calling for civility among both parties isn’t leadership. Had cpwill’s recollection been accurate, I would have adamantly pointed to that as an example of leadership.

You see, it is really easy to tell some jerk that is talking crap to your friend that he/she needs to shut up. It is even easier to say “everyone needs to just calm down” etc. However, it takes a spine and some leadership to grab your friend and tell him/her that they are acting like a jerk and they need to shut up.

As I said, had cpwill been correct, that would have been a clear example of leadership. Unfortunately cpwill was mistaken and the President never did squat about his unruly friends.

GPS_Flex said:

Calling for civility among both parties isn’t leadership. Had cpwill’s recollection been accurate, I would have adamantly pointed to that as an example of leadership.

You see, it is really easy to tell some jerk that is talking crap to your friend that he/she needs to shut up. It is even easier to say “everyone needs to just calm down” etc. However, it takes a spine and some leadership to grab your friend and tell him/her that they are acting like a jerk and they need to shut up.

As I said, had cpwill been correct, that would have been a clear example of leadership. Unfortunately cpwill was mistaken and the President never did squat about his unruly friends.

Click to expand...

And when has a republican president ever done "squat about his unruly friends"??

sangha said:

And when has a republican president ever done "squat about his unruly friends"??

Click to expand...

Bush scolds balking GOP Again

President Bush yesterday renewed his attack on Republicans who oppose his immigration bill, again charging that they are trying to "frighten people" and calling on supporters to rally around the compromise.

The president pleaded with senators to "show courage and resolve" to withstand outrage from voters in their districts.

"It is right to argue for what you believe and recognize that compromise might be necessary to move the bill along. And it is right to take political risk for members of the United States Congress," Mr. Bush said in his second impassioned plea this week on the issue and the second time that he has accused Republicans of trying to scare voters by labeling provisions in the bill an "amnesty."

Click to expand...

There are a lot of republicans that are still angry at Bush for this. Whether you agree or disagree with his position is another topic altogether but this is clearly an example of leadership.

GPS_Flex said:

Bush scolds balking GOP Again




There are a lot of republicans that are still angry at Bush for this. Whether you agree or disagree with his position is another topic altogether but this is clearly an example of leadership.

Click to expand...

Well done.

It's the weekend of the fourth. How does crow do on the barbie?

And I wonder why Obama has NEVER criticized the left

White House unloads anger over criticism from 'professional left

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.









“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”


The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Click to expand...

Oh when will Obama criticize someone on the left? And will the haters recognize his leadership when he does criticize the left?

I suspect not

From the article in the OP:

“That way he can hear directly from Republicans why what he’s proposing won’t pass,” McConnell said. “And we can start talking about what’s actually possible.”

Click to expand...

Translation: "Our way or the highway. Compromise is for ******s."

I wouldn't go either. They are obviously not interested in having a real discussion. Hell, even if he had no prior engagements at all I wouldn't blame him for not going. Watching paint dry would be more productive.

MistressNomad said:

From the article in the OP:



Translation: "Our way or the highway. Compromise is for ******s."

I wouldn't go either. They are obviously not interested in having a real discussion. Hell, even if he had no prior engagements at all I wouldn't blame him for not going. Watching paint dry would be more productive.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the translation. Here is my translation of your translation:

“I am such a partisan hack that I would rather see the United States crash and burn than accept a deal that didn’t include a tax hike”.


Care to explain how productive his meeting was with Hugo Chavez?

Has anybody thought about the possibility that they invited him knowing he'd decline, thus making some cheap political hay?

I'm not sure that he would have gotten the invite if the GOP thought there was any possibility of him coming

GPS_Flex said:

Thanks for the translation. Here is my translation of your translation:

“I am such a partisan hack that I would rather see the United States crash and burn than accept a deal that didn’t include a tax hike”.


Care to explain how productive his meeting was with Hugo Chavez?

Click to expand...

Rule #1 of negotiation: Everything is negotiable.

If you being the discussion with "not on the table", you've already failed at negotiation.

The President and Democrats proposed nearly $2 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Republicans offered no give on increasing revenues.

The one who fails at negotiating is the one who gives nothing. Republicans don't want to give anything to the negotiation, so why bother with negotiating with them.

GPS_Flex said:

Thanks for the translation. Here is my translation of your translation:

“I am such a partisan hack that I would rather see the United States crash and burn than accept a deal that didn’t include a tax hike”.


Care to explain how productive his meeting was with Hugo Chavez?

Click to expand...

Of course. Besides the fact that I'm not even a Dem. Anyone who disagrees with your own hackish assertions must hate America, right?

Trying to close the deficit with spending cuts alone would be a disaster for the people who actually have to live in this country. There is no doubt we need spending cuts, and I don't see anyone sane denying that.

But why go to a "talk" where the people who want to talk are unwilling to listen?

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Just about anything would be more productive than that lunch he was invited to.

sangha said:

Well done.

It's the weekend of the fourth. How does crow do on the barbie?

And I wonder why Obama has NEVER criticized the left

White House unloads anger over criticism from 'professional left



Oh when will Obama criticize someone on the left? And will the haters recognize his leadership when he does criticize the left?

I suspect not

Click to expand...

Posting an example of the Press Secretary defending the President against criticism from the left isn’t an example of leadership.

I can give you an example of his leadership but it’s way more fun to watch liberals squirm and try to think of an example on their own.

By the way, criticism is not leadership.

I would have a lot more respect for Obama if the fund raiser was to be applied to the national debt.

rocket88 said:

Has anybody thought about the possibility that they invited him knowing he'd decline, thus making some cheap political hay?

I'm not sure that he would have gotten the invite if the GOP thought there was any possibility of him coming

Click to expand...

This may be true. However, when you are going on fundraisers and vacations it isn’t usually wise to claim that the other guys should stay and work on the issue unless you are ready to do the same.

It makes you look like a hypocrite.

FilmFestGuy said:

Rule #1 of negotiation: Everything is negotiable.

If you being the discussion with "not on the table", you've already failed at negotiation.

The President and Democrats proposed nearly $2 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Republicans offered no give on increasing revenues.

The one who fails at negotiating is the one who gives nothing. Republicans don't want to give anything to the negotiation, so why bother with negotiating with them.

Click to expand...

How ludicrous. I want to negotiate with you. I’ll start with the demand that you allow me to water board you and your family for a week followed by you setting yourself on fire. That would be on the table?

There are some things money can’t buy and some things just aren’t negotiable. I don’t care if you have a web link or not, it’s a fact of life.

MistressNomad said:

Of course. Besides the fact that I'm not even a Dem. Anyone who disagrees with your own hackish assertions must hate America, right?

Trying to close the deficit with spending cuts alone would be a disaster for the people who actually have to live in this country. There is no doubt we need spending cuts, and I don't see anyone sane denying that.

But why go to a "talk" where the people who want to talk are unwilling to listen?

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Just about anything would be more productive than that lunch he was invited to.

Click to expand...

First off, you are wrong about spending cuts alone and we aren’t talking about the deficit, we’re talking about the debt.

If you don’t have the meeting you have a 0% chance of reaching a compromise. If you have the meeting you have a chance. It’s called defeatist attitude and any leader who thinks that way isn’t a true leader.

Deuce said:

Alternative headline:

Republicans invite president to lunch but he has previously scheduled engagement.

Click to expand...

Or: President not going to play male primate dominance and submission games with sworn enemies.

Every adult male who has ANY experience with heirarchical organizations knows exactly what game is being played here.

"Polling isn't trending well on flirting with default. The latest information we have has Independent voters holding Republicans responsible if a default occurs. Cancel your weekend plans, and get me the presidents engagement schedule. Ok, he's got a fundraiser set for midday, so issue a formal invitation for him to have lunch with us to discuss raising the debt ceiling. He will refuse, because its obviously a ploy to make him appear subordinate to us in the eyes of the people. This boxes him quite well, because we get him either way. When he refuses, we label him a hypocrite who doesn't take the issue seriously, which the "messaging" guys say should shift blame for a possible default back onto the Democrats."

/End of meeting

I wonder if any of the Republicans ACTUALLY cleared their schedules for that meeting or if it was a sham in its entirety?

GPS_Flex said:

First off, you are wrong about spending cuts alone and we aren’t talking about the deficit, we’re talking about the debt.

If you don’t have the meeting you have a 0% chance of reaching a compromise. If you have the meeting you have a chance. It’s called defeatist attitude and any leader who thinks that way isn’t a true leader.

Click to expand...

The refusal to walk into what is essentially nothing more than a political temper tantrum is in itself a negociation tactic. It is not "defeatist" to refuse to waste your time when the opening line for the engagement is basically "You'll do what we tell you to do, nothing more and nothing less." Wasting your time with that is just stupid. And refusing to waste your time with it sends the message that this is not a penis size contest.