One of the things the Obama-loving media have disgracefully forgotten since Inauguration Day was how the current President when he was on the campaign trail promised a new bipartisanship in America.
If elected, he was going to bring the nation together by forming huge Congressional majorities to support his policies.
This seems particularly important as the Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress appear quite willing to force healthcare reform down America's throats without any Republican involvement or support.
As the following video from October 2007 illustrates, candidate Obama was singing a far different tune back then (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Breitbart TV):
You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody's disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can't, you can't deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We're not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.
Build a working majority?
What a crock.
Of course, an even bigger crock is how so-called journalists in our nation refuse to hold Obama to promises he made when they boldly and unashamedly supported him for president.
Color me astoundingly unsurprised.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"You've got to break out of
October 27, 2009 - 12:23 ET by HockeyKid"You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern"
Uhbama's so capable and confident that he can't even be firm on what he wants to call a concept. "What I call the SORT OF 50 plus one pattern", indeed! Are we at all surprised that he now gives us something "kinda like foreign policy"?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
And This Surprises Us How?
October 27, 2009 - 12:32 ET by rightwingidiotObeyme can't go 20 seconds without either contradicing what he just said or telling an out-and-out lie.
What he said on the campaign trail is soooo yesterday. How on earth could we possibly require him to keep to anything he promised there.
All that stuff was just to get elected.
Or, to put it more
October 27, 2009 - 12:35 ET by mattmOr, to put it more succinctly: "well, duh."
Broken promises
October 27, 2009 - 12:52 ET by BlondeI'm truly beginning to wonder if Obama could even manage to deliver a pizza.
I hope he fails, too.
People would starve waiting...
October 27, 2009 - 13:18 ET by Georgia GirlNo way. Not with what we know about Obama and food! You know he'd eat that pizza himself, right there in the car. ^_^
But even if he didn't eat it, he'd probably change his mind about what he was doing halfway there -- he'd end up going golfing or something.
"There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings" ~Dorothy Thompson, writer ("First Lady of American Journalism")
Bitartisanship is:
October 27, 2009 - 12:34 ET by joseacolonIf you are a liberal or a communist, bipartisanship means that as long as you think, speak and act like them, you are an example to be followed. If you happen to disagree, you are mentally retarded or an enemy of the state.There are times when you can actually talk to the opposition and there might even be an opportunity for a successful strategy and agreement without compromising your values. But this one is not one of them.
Can't say I blame him.
October 27, 2009 - 12:37 ET by Another Dead KennedyCan't say I blame him. When roughly half of the country has no interest in seeing the President accomplish any of his goals, where is his motivation to be bipartisan? No matter what he does, republicans will not be happy. May as well serve those who put him in office.
xoxo - Ted
→ Drupal
October 27, 2009 - 12:47 ET by Cool ArrowDownright charitable with other people's money, aren't you?
Poor Barry, your picture of him eating worms is heartbreaking.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Apparently I'm downright
October 27, 2009 - 12:53 ET by Another Dead KennedyApparently I'm downright charitable with my own money. Just took a look at a paystub, Tex, and damn, my FWT-YTD is enough to buy a car. Crap.
xoxo - Ted
Call me when your charity
October 27, 2009 - 13:15 ET by Dan The Man 2Call me when your charity giving is enough to buy a car. And how much extra do you pay in Teddy
Phone number? xoxo - Ted
October 27, 2009 - 13:53 ET by Another Dead KennedyPhone number?
xoxo - Ted
BR-549
October 29, 2009 - 00:05 ET by Dan The Man 2BR-549
The hottest chicks on TV for the time...
October 29, 2009 - 00:08 ET by MightyMouthOr for that matter since!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
"....Just took a look at a
October 27, 2009 - 16:48 ET by GregE"....Just took a look at a paystub, Tex, and damn, my FWT-YTD is enough to buy a car...."
Just think of how much of it was wasted, by people who think they know better how to spend your money than you do, yet if you don't pay it, you're fined, assets taken, or you go to jail.
And really, all I want is
October 27, 2009 - 17:01 ET by Another Dead KennedyAnd really, all I want is for that pothole at the intersection of Santa Monica and 11th to be filled. Ah well.
xoxo - Ted
Your fed taxes wont fill it,
October 29, 2009 - 00:07 ET by Dan The Man 2Your fed taxes wont fill it, you would do better to fill it yourself.
Interestingly, pretty much
October 27, 2009 - 14:08 ET by Roger the ShrubberInterestingly, pretty much most every president enters office with a slim, barely-over-50% of the population voting for him. It is his a part of his job to UNITE the country. You know, the words Obama delivered to the eager, willing masses in speech after speech. Even as he was inaugurated, Obama had a bipartisan dinner with some Republicans in the spirit of bipartisanship, and said: "We will not always agree on everything in the months to come, and we will have our share of arguments and debates," Obama said. "But let us strive always to find that common ground, and to defend together those common ideals, for it is the only way we can meet the very big and very serious challenges that we face right now."
More lofty, but empty rhetoric from a man who can deliver nothing more than that? After all, it didn't take long before "bipartisanship" went out the window, right? Such minimal effort on the part of Obama should be expected, since he actually never put much effort in to being nonpartisan, right?
So, please, spare us the drivel of "well, he tried, but those bad Republicans wouldn't play ball". Bipartisaship was never in the cards in the first place.
Oh yeah. how bout them Dodgers?
Oh I'm sorry. Did I imply
October 27, 2009 - 14:39 ET by Another Dead KennedyOh I'm sorry. Did I imply that he tried to be bipartisan? I don't think I actually did. Look, this is the same story as the last president, the one before him, and the one before him. They pretend they can unify a country that doesn't want to be unified, and once they get into office they realize that the other party is working 100% against them. But I'm sure you can lecture me on exactly how bi-partisan the presidents of the past have been in comparison to President Obama.
And yeah, how about those Dodgers? I was really looking forward to my New York Yankees coming out here and beating them in the World Series. I guess Philly will suffice.
xoxo - Ted
→ Drupal
October 27, 2009 - 14:42 ET by Cool ArrowAll I took from your comment was that you think Obama should push through his agenda for spite.
I don't know how long he'll be proud of taking that angle, but it's obviously the one he's chosen.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
But isn't that what
October 27, 2009 - 14:49 ET by Another Dead KennedyBut isn't that what presidents do? Who was the last president who didn't look to his party's best interests first, and then the rest of the nation. I love how the only people who want bi-partisanship are those who didn't vote for the party in office.
xoxo - Ted
→ Me too Drupal
October 27, 2009 - 18:00 ET by Cool ArrowIf I've given you the impression I want bipartisanship from this President, forgive me.
I'm in favor of the Government that governs least.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Oh, I thought you were
October 27, 2009 - 17:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberOh, I thought you were making excuses, er, explaining why you don't blame the sitting President for not acting in a bipartisan fashion (even after pledging for months to do so, hence the previous comment of mine), because of all those evil teabagging dumbass rednecks and their evil Republican senators and congressmen throwing up roadblocks at every turn. Poor Obama!
As for lecturing you about bipartisanship, most presidents in the past did not have the luxury of having such an overwhelming majority in both Houses like our current President does. But your boy is so imcompetent that he still cannot ram his f'ed-up Marxist agenda through. Man, that has to hurt, knowing that a complete idiot like Chimpy McHitler was a less incompetent president that your guy. Ouch!
Really, Roger. Your
October 27, 2009 - 18:30 ET by Another Dead KennedyReally, Roger. Your continued presumptions are truly entertaining. First off, I did not vote for Obama, as I've stated many times before, so cross that one off your list. Second, your boy W had an overwhelming majority from 2002 - 2007, when both the House and Senate had republican majorities. Scary when one party has so much control, isn't it?
Ouch!
xoxo - Ted
2002 to 2006 ted
October 29, 2009 - 00:14 ET by Dan The Man 22002 to 2006 ted
Get your years right Ted
October 29, 2009 - 00:28 ET by MightyMouthWhen the Dumbocrats took over there was about a 4.5% (FULL EMPLOYMENT)unemployment rate and one third the(CURRENT) deficit and 4 million more jobs. And the Republicans where trying to quell the coming real-estate bubble/collapse. But according to Bawny Frawnks everything was OK.
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
So, in the same breath you
October 29, 2009 - 09:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo, in the same breath you whined about me assuming a douche like you would ever vote for a fellow douche like Obama is incorrect, you assumed a person of obviously-superior intellect like me was a big Bush fan. Since the majority of your comments are of the usual cry-baby liberal belly-aching, how could anybody assume you would vote otherwise? I have a long-standing track record here at Newsbusters (something you do not have) speaking out against the former president.
That being said, the former President Bush never had anything CLOSE to the "overwhelming" majority the current president has in both Houses. At most he had something like 54-55 Repub senators and maybe a 20-seat advantage in the House, which actually forced Bush to compromise in numerous issues. Surely a Sweaty Teddy lover like you can not forget No Child Left Behind, right?
Hell, Bush reached out to the Dems when it came to liberal actions like the stimulus bill(s), and the 2006 immigration fiasco that the Repubs rightfully shot down.
Man, you are batting a whopping ZERO today, Sparky. Just like those Yankees, eh?
Ta-ta, Pumpkin!
You tickle me, Roger. Is
October 29, 2009 - 11:41 ET by Another Dead KennedyYou tickle me, Roger. Is this your way of telling me how it is? Again, your infantile, yet humorous statements (the majority of your comments are of the usual cry-baby liberal belly-aching - surely you have examples to back up your claim) continue to dismiss the facts. Did you not vote for W twice?
And now you want to change the rules of the game as we play. For 4 years W had a GOP majority in both the house and senate. Now your excuse is, "well yeah it's a majority, but not a HUGE majority like Obama has." As far as your keeping score fetish, I hope it helps you sleep better at night. You know, someone around here told me recently, I don't know what's up with Roger lately - he's usually pretty cool. Personally, I've failed to find a redeeming quality of yours. Later cupcake.
xoxo - Ted
I am merely responding to
October 29, 2009 - 15:30 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am merely responding to one of your multiple personalities that stated "your boy W had an overwhelming majority from 2002 - 2007, when both the House and Senate had republican majorities." Sorry if me pointing out that you were wrong irks you, but facts are facts.
I am also sorry that this entire thread ended up being an embarrassment for you, but, hey, you kept coming back for more. And, yes, I am "telling you like it is". Please do not consider us unsuprised you are unable to understand that, since you have two dozen different usernames, and an obvious tenuous grasp on reality.
Ta-ta, Pumpkin!
1-1
November 5, 2009 - 13:18 ET by Another Dead Kennedy1-1
edit: 2-1
edit: 3-1
edit: 4-2
-pumpkin
Glad I didn't believe him then
October 27, 2009 - 12:51 ET by Sestren_NKI'd feel like a sucker if I ever did.
A Crock?
October 27, 2009 - 12:52 ET by acumenA Crock?
Yes we can.
A Plan?
No we can't.
Nine months since start-up and Obama's plan of selling Congressional bipartisanship already needs a government bailout. With no cash left to borrow, maybe the Won can borrow some political capital from China.
I first started following
October 27, 2009 - 13:04 ET by BruzillaI first started following Obama's speeches when he was still campaigning in Iowa, and the reason he caught my interest was his repeated use of "us", "we", "our", etc., which made the listener feel included in everything he was saying. By doing this, listeners received all of his promises with a "maybe we can do it... together" attitude. Hillary was the opposite, and she always used an exclusive "I", "mine", or "me" that forced her listeners to pass judgement on whether she alone could accomplish something. She lost.
Since the election, Obama has stopped being inclusive and is now using all the "mine", "me", and "I" comments ala Hillary. No surprise he isn't getting anywhere.
Rewriting History BS
October 27, 2009 - 19:10 ET by slickwillie2001Republicans in the Senate had a tiny majority under six years of President George W. Bush's presidency, from five senators to one senator, or one to five percent. That allowed the democratics to block anything the Republicans wanted to do, like fixing the corrupt Fannie and Freddie.
That fix alone might have saved us from the financial collapse on Wall Street.
ob
October 27, 2009 - 21:57 ET by jessieHobama is a fake. He is a drive-by insulter. He has no clue what to do. A puppet of corruption. I had high hopes for him but he has let the people down. Our troops are needing his support and he still does nothing! This is not the words he promised. He would rather campaign for democrats than do his job as comander in chief. This is unacceptable! He was not elected to campaign for anyone! He is a puppet of the democrats & the republicans. They are one in the same. Where are the leaders of our country? They aren't in Washington.