As the slow-leaking facts mount up at our feet like cherry pits, Congressional Republicans believe President Obama and his unpopular administration will face impeachment or resignation.
"This ain't going away," said Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) " There's too much there." The practice of Obama of reading every public word he utters from the reading machine (dubbed "TOTUS" by his critics) will bring him down, they believe.
With the Republicans' usual mastery of the media, they've managed to keep the issue of Obama's mysterious dependence on the teleprompter up and running for months. It's prevented him from getting anything done in his first 100 days, and is the basis of the public's distrust and dislike for the man and his family.
Republicans are convinced that the ubiquitous machine, with its glinting glass screens is hiding more than Obama's obvious difficulties communicating, and his meager abilities.
Why can't the POTUS kick this habit? Does he never have anything original or spontaneous to say? Who runs TOTUS?
The GOP has several theories: 1) he's stupid 2) he's on drugs 3) he's controlled electronically by Rahm Emmanuel who's controlled by George Soros and ACORN.
As Rush Limbaugh said Monday:
Sean Hannity wondered out loud on his radio show Tuesday, "He can't improvise a core belief?"
Obama seems to be getting worse at reading from the screens. Except for some brave reporting from the respected on-line pub Newsmax, nobody is reporting this stuff.
"The fix is in with the mainstream media," says a Republican analyst, "that's why they're acting like this is just petty bullshit dreamed up in petty desperation."
The Republican teleprompter drumbeat day after day is dragging down his public opinion numbers. According to the Rasmussen, 52% of Republicans think he's not bright enough to say anything original; 24% think he's a Moslem and needs translation from the Arabic; and 31% believe he's addicted to crack.
Despite it serves as the strings of the puppetmaster, the teleprompter seems to have a mind of its own.
The Republicans know they have the upper hand now, and Democrats are scared. "I feel like we're living on borrowed time," says a Congressman who wouldn't let his name be used.
With the truth about the teleprompter and its manipulators looming over Washington like a Great Blossoming Turd, Republicans know that any day now, the Obama presidency will just go up in flames, and everything will go back the way it was... or, as they call it: to the blessed "post 911 world."
I think you're tongue is in your cheek here...
Posted by: Fremontier | April 29, 2009 at 12:37 AM
That the Rethugs and their Limbaugh-type leaders persist in this is solid evidence that they have nothing to offer and that they are fading into the background. They will now simply be spectators in Congress limited to holding press conferences that will likely drain of interest in short order. My friends, we are on our way to complete domination of this country. Our programs will now begin to take shape and flourish and America will once again return to a dynamic state of progress instead of a cesspool of stagnation. 'Tis a great day to be an American and a Democrat.
Posted by: Mandy | April 29, 2009 at 06:10 AM
Was our President using totus when he approved (or didn't know about) AF1 buzzing lower Manhattan and scaring the hell out of folks.
Which is it? Did he know about it or was he totally unaware?
Either way, it doesn't look good does it.
Posted by: HoChiMinh | April 29, 2009 at 06:15 AM
Only because your side lost Duffass.
Posted by: Don Ho Chi Man | April 29, 2009 at 09:10 AM
You can call me names and get off-topic as you want, but you are just avoiding and evading the subject matter. I understand why it's difficult for you, so continue to ramble on.
Posted by: HoChiMinh | April 29, 2009 at 09:30 AM
Would you Ho's and ChiChi's STFU and either stay on topic or post elsewhere.
Posted by: Mikey | April 29, 2009 at 09:41 AM
Why start now? I'd be surprised to find any thread on this site that managed to stay on-topic past the first few comments.
By the end of the list, you guys are mostly eating yourselves... waaay to easy!
Mainly, the denizens of this list are totally unable to tolerate opinions other than their own, or anything... ANYTHING that includes Republican, Bush, Hannity or Limbaugh. The mere posting of any of the above words is virtually guaranteed to cause instant apoplexy among the local populace and reduce any meaningful conversation to a feeding frenzy of personal attacks!
Posted by: KSR | April 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM
"The GOP has several theories: 1) he's stupid 2) he's on drugs 3) he's controlled electronically by Rahm Emmanuel who's controlled by George Soros and ACORN."
This has several comparisons to just a few years ago:
1)Bush could neither read, nor memorize a speech, which resulted in Americans grossly "misunderestimating" him.
2)He was in continual cocaine withdrawl, and having flashbacks from that time in 1968 when he was shot down over a tavern in Austin, and
3)Bush was basically a mutt on two leashes, held by two of the most evil masterminds of the neo-con mafia, Karl "the Turdblossom" Rove, and Dick "Fuck You" Cheney.
Posted by: Drew | April 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM
This just in: terrorists have bombed Islamabad with teleprompters. details at eleven
Posted by: Mark C. | April 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Well, you know what they say. You can teleprompter but you can't tell them much.
Posted by: HungLowandProud | April 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM
I can't believe that conservatives think this phony teleprompter deal hurts Obama. He's simply one of the most comfortable communicators I have ever seen. As always, their criticisms are belied by just watching and listening to him. It is just as in the campaign when they called him a wild-eyed radical terrorist, or a sneaky liar. It is a case of "believe what I say, not what you see with your own two eyes, or hear with your own two ears." Republicans will be on their way to their own recovery and resurrection when they learn to give the American people some credit for some smarts.
George Bush could not speak extemporaneously, was uncomfortable in front of a crowd, never allowed anyone into his "town meetings" except pre-screened supporters, and made some of the most hilarious malaprops in the history of American politics. That Obama uses electronic "notes" (which is all a telepromter is) for every speech is testament to his cautiousness, not his inability to communicate. There will not be multiple books of Obama's misspeaks as there were of Bush's embarrassing fuck-ups.
Posted by: Jambo sana | April 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Good discussion. Every time the right starts talking about Obama's teleprompter dependence, it reminds me of how I wish Bush had used his more.
Posted by: sarah from austin | April 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Most of the critics from the right are also people that rely on teleprompters themselves, and like the President, their jobs don't allow them to ad-lib in every situation.
Posted by: Drew | April 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM
And from the mouths of BW babes.
Posted by: Washyourhands | April 29, 2009 at 11:20 AM
no wonder Robert Gibbs gave the DC Press an 'A.'
I can't believe they will sit still for this.
Basically, they lob a question to Pres Obama and let him pontificate/obsfuscate/meander around for about 4 minutes and then he returns to it at the end of his 4 minute mini speech by saying, 'okay' next question.
Jeez, I hope he lets 'em sleep over 'til morning and gets them breakfast after what he is doing to them.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 07:17 PM
Puts do you miss Jeff Gannon?
Posted by: sparky | April 29, 2009 at 07:28 PM
Puget Sound: when he answered the questions he wasn’t on the prompter was he?
Posted by: M.Steele | April 29, 2009 at 08:21 PM
"Puts do you miss Jeff Gannon?
Posted by: sparky | April 29, 2009 at 07:28 "
why don't you address the question about a docile media?
and no, i don't miss jeff gannon. for the historians among us -include yourself 'out' ph(J)oanie- JFK had a fairly docile media and would have a question planted for him. america wasn't well served by that practice.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 08:28 PM
"Puget Sound: when he answered the questions he wasn’t on the prompter was he?
Posted by: M.Steele | April 29, 2009 at 08:21 PM"
why would he need a prompter for that? they give him a topic and he riffs for 4 minutes and then announces. 'okay' as the press tees up another question.
it is getting a little tiresome listening to his complaining. being president is haaaarrddd.
here's a thought: you ran for the position.
sparky liked to demean mccain by calling him 'gramps' but i doubt you would have mccain -someone battle tested- crying about how hard the job was.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 08:33 PM
He has a 68% rating, higher than the two previous presidents in their first 100 days
Posted by: Coiler | April 29, 2009 at 08:54 PM
McCain couldn't handle the battle of campaigning, partly because his ship was being steered by a party whose compass has been broken for a long time, and they were dragging an anchor named Palin.
Posted by: Johnny Gage | April 29, 2009 at 09:05 PM
Why do you guys answer posts from an idiot who can't remember what was said two posts earlier so he has to double post just to remember?
Maybe if you'd stop using his name...maybe he just likes seeing his name in print. Ya think?
Posted by: joanie | April 29, 2009 at 09:06 PM
Hey Coils, Jimmy Carter was at 69 % at the 100 day mark. How'd that work out for ya? ROFLMAO
Per Gallup
"PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's first quarter in office concludes on Sunday, and during this early stage of his presidency he has averaged a solid 63% job approval, reaching as high as 69% in the initial days of his presidency and falling as low as 59% on a few occasions.
"Obama's 63% first-quarter average matches the historical average of 63% for elected presidents' first quarters since 1953. However, it is the fourth highest for a newly elected president since that time, and the highest since Jimmy Carter's 69% in 1977."
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 09:11 PM
Hey, welcome aboard! We like Jimmy Carter too. Does this mean you are finally coming over from The Dark Side? Arlen came over- you can too, Putzie.
Posted by: Johnny Gage | April 29, 2009 at 09:19 PM
"Maybe if you'd stop using his name...maybe he just likes seeing his name in print. Ya think?
Posted by: joanie | April 29, 2009 at 09:06 PM"
poor ph(J)oanie, still hasn't figured it out.
too funny.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 09:20 PM
You sure have been whining a lot, Puts.
Posted by: sparky | April 29, 2009 at 09:27 PM
Bloomberg says 68%
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ayE7j8CFP2EE&refer=us
How did that work out later with Nixon? LMAO?
Posted by: Coiler | April 29, 2009 at 09:28 PM
"Hey, welcome aboard! We like Jimmy Carter too. Does this mean you are finally coming over from The Dark Side? Arlen came over- you can too, Putzie.
Posted by: Johnny Gage | April 29, 2009 at 09:19 PM
I still remember the inept foreign policy and 19 percent interest rates. No thanks.
But if it will bring another 8 years of Ronald Reagan I guess I'll struggle through four years of a Jimmy Carter.
Anyone recall the year long struggle to get those hostages released under Jimmy Carter? Right after Reagan's swearing in -and before Reagan had returned to the Oval Office- those hostages were released. Even ph(J)oanie can do that math.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 09:36 PM
It's time to step on the neck of the GOP and crush the life out of them. with a tip of the hat to MF
Posted by: Coiler | April 29, 2009 at 09:36 PM
"Bloomberg says 68%
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ayE7j8CFP2EE&refer=us
How did that work out later with Nixon? LMAO?
Posted by: Coiler | April 29, 2009 at 09:28 PM"
Soooo, you proved my point. 100 days is just an arbitrary benchmark. Both Carter and Nixon were disasters. You want to tie that to Obama, go ahead.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 09:38 PM
No, I wish to point out your sources are shit out of the toilet.
Posted by: Coiler | April 29, 2009 at 09:40 PM
"You sure have been whining a lot, Puts.
Posted by: sparky | April 29, 2009 at 09:27 PM"
whining? yikes! let me check with my minions and get back with you on that.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 09:41 PM
"No, I wish to point out your sources are shit out of the toilet.
Posted by: Coiler | April 29, 2009 at 09:40 PM"
yeah, that gallup poll outfit. wtf do THEY know.
you cite polls. i point to another poll with largely the same results and prove something with the same logic as your post.
so yeah, Obama is about as well liked as Carter -or Nixon- was at this point of his presidency.
how'd that turn out?
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 09:45 PM
coiler, would you be nice enough to say hi to ph(J)oanie?
I got to go take my meds. later
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 29, 2009 at 09:46 PM
"Maybe if you'd stop using his name...maybe he just likes seeing his name in print. Ya think?"
11 Days.
(Thanks M.S. for correcting me yesterday. Can I consider you a friend)
Posted by: nevets | April 29, 2009 at 10:11 PM
And now, a little history lesson for Putzzz...contrary to the hallucinogenic wet-dreams of you cons, Reagan didn't have anything to do with the release of the 52 American hostages; he just had the "coincidental credit" of slipping into the Oval Office recliner at the same time that the Algiers Accords were convened. Here are the main decisions from that negotiation:
*The US would not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairs.
*The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran.
*Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.
*The US would ensure that U.S. court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced.
*Iranian debts to U.S. institutions would be paid.
The U.S. chief negotiator was Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, from the Carter Administration. Reagan had exactly ZERO U.S. representatives from HIS administration present for those negotiations that ultimately freed the hostages.
Posted by: Drew | April 29, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Watch that political capital collapse like a house of cards.
It must feel better to have your tyrant in there using Chicago style politics to successfully run this country into the ground and blame it on the GOP - like freakin' magic - shizam ! Seems like Obama (the deceiver) is economically following along similar lines as Bushler - except he is ramping up the spending and trying to deceive us into believing that we will spend our way out of this deep recession.
Think it will happen ? hear what the experts say- Details at 11. Hell, guess I had one too many shots of Jack Daniels...
Posted by: KS | April 29, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Yes, reagan like nixon, did back door deals with the enemy. Dirksen said so.
LBJ said "I'd rather have someone inside the tent pissing out than someone outside pissing in", ya know?
Posted by: Coiler | April 29, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Drew, you are so naive. The only reason Iran came to the table in the first place was because Reagan won the election in 1980. If Carter had won re-election, those hostages would still be in Iran.
Posted by: nevets | April 29, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I understand you can't read, steven. That's why I put it up for Puts. Reagan's only involvement in Iran was to sell arms to Hezbollah, which Rayguns probably believed was the Union of Sunday School Teachers of Tehran.
Posted by: Drew | April 29, 2009 at 10:52 PM
they would? Are you Nevetsradamus?
Posted by: Coiler | April 29, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I'm laughing again. It is so nice to see you keeping these idiots on the defensive. You've driven one away to his medicine cabinet and got the other one thinking about it.
Good on you.
BTW, Fixed News (I like that) didn't air Obama's press conference so Obama didn't call on the guy from Fixed News. We'll show 'em.
Can you imagine a so-called news network not airing the President's news conference? No wonder these idiots never have any accurate information.
Posted by: joanie | April 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Personal Lessons in Substance Abuse- just one of the many services your modern republican party has to offer.
Posted by: Johnny Gage | April 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM
HAHAHAHA!!- NEVETSTRADAMUS!!
LMFAO! Just the image of Steven in a turban, gazing into a crystal ball tuned into Fux News is too much! HAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by: Drew | April 30, 2009 at 12:01 AM
And what exactly did all that shit have to do with the topic.
Posted by: Mikey | April 30, 2009 at 05:13 AM
"Can you imagine a so-called news network not airing the President's news conference? No wonder these idiots never have any accurate information.
Posted by: joanie | April 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM"
Hey ph(J)oanie, the Fox News Network carried the President's speech, oops, I mean 'news conference'. It was the Fox regular Network Channel that elected to air something other than that.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 30, 2009 at 05:31 AM
Jimmy Carter had 444 days to get it done. Oh for sure the Warren Christopher types worked hard to get it done while Carter was still President. But the Iranians had little respect for Carter and played him for a fool The Iranians terrorist could have released those hostages at any time during then to Jimmy Carter but chose to wait until Ronald Reagan was President.
Politics aside, if you were a terrorist would you fear an ineffectual Carter or a 'warmonger' like Reagan.
Answer: Within a few minutes of becoming Commander in Chief, the hostages were released.
Hey Drew, history lesson over. No doubt you had some substandard ph(J)oanie teacher who inculcated you with 'herstory' when you were in school.
Of course, later President Reagan had his own issues with Iran Contra. (just wanted to save Coiler a posting)
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 30, 2009 at 05:47 AM
Hey, from the AP are some Facts. I guess we still have a few reporters out there not content to lay on their backside and wait for yet another 'A' from Press Secretary Gibbs.
"FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape
By CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON That wasn't me, President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.
It actually was him and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years who shaped a budget so out of balance.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
OBAMA: Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years.
THE FACTS:
Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond one-time charges.
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion."
Hey ph(J)oanie, being President is haaaaaard!
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 30, 2009 at 06:44 AM
Puget Sound presenting "facts" like you do this early in the morning will ruin the "regulars" day. You are their worst nightmare and your facts are a heavy burden for them to bear. I think they wish you'd go away so they could continue patting each other on the back in peace. LMAO
Posted by: HoChiMinh | April 30, 2009 at 07:06 AM
I gotcha Ho.
When Facts come to play, the Rats run away....
I'll give 'em a break to regroup.
If you run into Duff, tell him 'hi' and that he is missed by many of us on this blog.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 30, 2009 at 07:28 AM