US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

yeah everything i've read about it, it sounds like he was kind of awesome

And, like I said, if the DNC had balls they'd air clips in every open Congressional district.

seriously cant BELIEVE gop let obama do that

i mean that was like a democratic party-level mistake--give the most popular politician in the country a mic, a stage, and the opportunity to swat down each and every one of your ideas, and make it look like a bipartisan exchange

"fuck, it's only c-span, what's the worst that could happen?"

hahaha can't wait to watch this!

They probably thought they would humiliate Obama with their better ideas.

almost made up for rahm emanuels comments about hcr

I was being facetious with that, but they could also be banking on Obama slipping up at some point and offering a soundbyte that might be damaging in political ads later. The downside - Obama defending the administration's policies and offering the reasoning behind them - may be obvious for Obama voters, but I think it's pretty obvious that GOP voters and teabaggers aren't really affected by reason.

yeah my sense is that hubris got the better of them

kind of ironic, given the normal line of attack against Obama

I mean, the guy was a con law professor; this was no contest.

i hope he keeps doing it--aren't they gonna meet once a month or something, but do you think they'll get smart & uninvite him

yeah the WH really needs to push on this--lets do it once a month!

I kinda wondered if something like this as coming when Boehner was recently quoted as saying he hadn't spoken/seen Obama face-to-face in a year (which at first I assumed was a boldfaced lie). simply put, these guys are morons and didn't see the potential political implications of what they were doing, and Obama did. He made it look like he was making a conciliatory overture, then let them hang themselves with their stupidity.

as = was

I mean, the guy was a con law professor; this was no contest.

that hasn't stopped him from lying in the SOTU address

it probably helped him tbh

I recall eerily similar Clinton theories.

totally sympathetic to this, as a Clinton voter who felt completely and totally betrayed by him post-'94... but Clinton never confronted the opposition the way Obama did today, I don't think he was capable (or interested) in it. otoh, it seems like a stretch to believe that the GOP will change their tune following this embarassment. Its good politics for Obama, definitely, but these guys are so unprincipled and obstinate I don't know if there's any minds there for Obama to actually change. This is the kind of opposition that sees any compromise as a sign of weakness (and that goes both for themselves and for their opponent), so you can't make nice and hope they'll play along... but they also aren't really susceptible to being bullied. Maybe Obama's playing the long game here and hoping that if he can turn the political fortunes of the Dems around, then enough of these bozos will be voted out of office and he'll get an even bigger majority in the fall...? although that's a long ways away, and also seems kinda unlikely...

I guess we can look forward to this

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/29/fact-checking-obama-and-republicans-gop-retreat/

that hasn't stopped him from lying in the SOTU address

oh STFU even your "fact checking" post couldn't come up with anything

We found Obama was exaggerating the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance when he said it would "open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections." We rated that Barely True.

for the record, this (for example) is not a FACT its a fucking prognostication - and their opinion on the future is no more or less dubious than Obama's.

barack "liar" obama

but do tell which "lies" you're referring to... maybe bet your balls while you're at it

was it the part where he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

cry me a river Shakey.

No, seriously.

don, don't bet your balls!

no seriously, what "lies" are you referring to cuz yr post didn't cite a SINGLE ONE

river of blood coming up...

I only lost my balls once, when McCain got nominated. And that hurt.

Hey Shakey--how about the time that Obama lied about having HCR negotiations on CSPAN?

that wasn't in the SOTU

did don bet his balls or

if you bet your balls you'll probably get 2-to-1 odds

who will get dons balls if he loses the bet

getting don's balls--not sure that's "winning"

and if yr referring to Reid making backroom deals with Ben Nelson, for example, that's kinda Reid's fault and not Obama's, no?

cuz otherwise I'm pretty sure CSPAN televised all the Senate/House floor proceedings on healthcare just like they do for every other issue...

x-post

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections."

It was not a century of law.

WHAT A LIAR

YOU LIE OBAMA

NOT A CENTURY

IMPEACH THE LIAR

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections."

It was not a century of law.

― Obama needs a John McCone (Dandy Don Weiner), Friday, 29 January 2010 22:49 (11 seconds ago)

The law at issue had been on the books for over 100 years. Yes, you can argue that this doesn't mean the "law" had been static for 100 years. But it's not a lie, dude.

Ken Burns Presents
1900-2000: A Century of Balls

tonight on PBS

guys the National Review wouldn't lie

The law at issue had been on the books for over 100 years. Yes, you can argue that this doesn't mean the "law" had been static for 100 years. But it's not a lie, dude.

The Court was not addressing a century of law or even a century of precedent. It overturned two decisions from the past 15 years. Obama's comments are so misleading--coming from a ConLaw prof--that they essentially laws. And that's my point--you couldn't make his statements in a ConLaw classroom and get away with it.

err, that "they are lies"

Obama didn't need to stretch the truth like he did. Or even lie.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go bet my balls on something else. Probably beer.

better bet

if you don't think foreign money won't find its way through "American" companies and into party coffers because of this law you are either deliberately misreading the law/being a moron/are a partisan hack. I don't even know how you credibly establish the nationality of a corporation, its not like they have birth certificates and passports.

x-posts