News & Politics

Rant

Obama's Response to Critics

Posted 39 months ago|8 comments|588 views
VIDEOS
Written by
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
I do not understand why the President of the United States continues to respond to attacks from entertainers. He should be above these kinds of attacks, if he truly believes he’s doing what’s best for the country. Did George Bush ever engage in petty arguments with Keith Olberman- or Al Franken-types? No, because he felt he was doing what was best for the country and wasn’t going to respond as if he were a kid being bullied on the playground.

This week, the White House Press Sect. made comments attacking Mad Money’s Jim Cramer (a liberal) for saying Obama’s budget is the “greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president” and has continued the much-talked about Rush Limbaugh feud (which started with a quote taken out of context).

About a year ago, Dick Cheney was told in an interview that the majority of Americans were against the war in Iraq. He simply responded, “So?” It irked a bunch of liberals when he said it, but he’s right. If they believed what they were doing was right for the country, then they shouldn’t care what the uninformed general population thinks. I believe it is the attitude that the Obama Administration should take.

If someone says something mean about you, or criticizes your decisions, let it go. There are plenty of people in the media to come to your defense. You are wasting your time. For every second you spend discussing how to respond to Limbaugh or Kramer, or whoever is next, you take away from the amount of time you could be discussing important issues that will actually have an effect on the nation.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
39 months ago: I completely agree with you, nice rant!
but i still support the war, we probably shouldn't have invaded, but once we created the conditions to support civil war, it is our responsibility to fix what we broke, and prevent Iraq from collapsing. We don't need another Vietnam
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
39 months ago: I don't think it's possible to save face on this one. Face was lost the moment it was clear there were no massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, no uranium processing centers, and no missile capability whatsoever. Worse, it seems that not a single person in the government from the top down seemed to be able to read the history of Iraq and note that the British tried nearly exactly the same thing long ago and it ended in a pretty similar fashion.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
39 months ago: Now as for responding to critics in the media. The press secretary responding isn't the same as the President responding is it? But, in case you haven't noticed, and apparently Rush Limbaugh still hasn't figured this out, by legitimizing the Limbaugh as the face of the Republican Party, and realizing that is ego is massive enough to believe he is the voice of the party, the left is very effectively working to convince not only the Independents, so critical to Obama's victory especially in states that went for Bush in 2004, but even moderate Republicans who find the entire Limbaugh crowd too reactionary for even their tastes. By making a guy that a lot of moderates in both parties and most independents find to be a self-anointed, un-opposed, ultra neo-conservative, right-wing nut, appear to be the leader of the Republican Party, they very effectively drive an even larger wedge between those who listen to Limbaugh because they love him and those who listen because the think the way he treats people who call in with opposing views is hilarious, good times.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
39 months ago: This is the problem with this bunch of egomanics. They don't see that someone has finally figured out how to use their power against them. It's really quite calculated and ingenious.

Karl Rove was the genius that figured out you could win the presidency without the huge electoral votes of California, New York or Illinois, as long as you got the electoral votes of the the rest of the central states, and the central West strip from ID and MT south to AZ and NM.

Obama knew that he could not win without pulling some of those states in back into his column--hence why the convention was set in Denver and he made so many trips to those areas.

Now Obama's team knows that they can do even better next time if they can maintain the independent votes, and draw in moderate Republicans. If the Governor of Utah is criticizing the GOP, there you have it. One by one, the stones start to fall out of place and the wall caves in.
39 months ago: Well I know I came into RR guns a blazing so to speak because I was so mad about the Stimulus/pay off my buddies that got me in bill (was not happy about TARP one either though). But I have calmed down some so I will try to be civil.
First I like the rant and agree, if he feels he is right then this reactionary habit is just making him look as if he wants to get us on his side for some reason. I mean why bother when he can cram anything down our throats just like the Stimulus package.
Now I will try to be brief in commenting on the Iraq war. Clinton did practically nothing to oppose Osama Bin Laden from building his terror army even though Bin Laden was broadcasting world wide for recruits to come to his training camps to be trained to kill Americans and Jews. In fact he had a chance to take him out but did not want to upset the Saudis of which many support Bin Laden anyway. So in my opinion the lack of action on Clinton's part lead to the loss of 3,000 civilians lives on 911.
Now Saddam had WMDs we know that because he used them on his own people. So what happened to them? they did not melt I don't think. And why did he not allow inspectors in if he was not hiding anything. He violated every agreement he made to end the first Gulf War and these are NATO and UN agreements not just U.S agreements.
39 months ago: Cont.
I for one do not think we should have went into Iraq but I believe we had every right to and with the way Saddam was acting he looked like someone who could help a terrorist group make a large attack on the U.S if he had half a chance. Bush was doing something to prevent another attack in contrast to Clinton's lack of action which lead to an attack.
Also let us not forget that Iran is the worst threat and as time goes by we will see that more and more. A strong Democratic Iraq will help balance the power in that area.
If we had not went into Iraq would that area be more stable now? well hind site is always 20/20 and from my perspective eight years of doing little more than nothing by Clinton got us 911. Bush was trying to stabilize the region to prevent further attacks and we did not get attacked again during his administration.
I am not a big Bush fan but I suspect we will see more extortion and kidnappings from our enemies with Obama in because they know he will only talk and will pay them off. This will hold them back until they rebuild and sooner or later we will get hit again in my opinion, though I hope and pray I am wrong. Sorry I guess I wasn't very brief.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.