Obama tells Republicans he should have worked more with them

[somone]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/30/obama.congressional.leaders/

Obama tells Republicans he should have worked more with them
By the CNN Wire Staff

Washington (CNN) -- A political summit between President Barack Obama and congressional leaders Tuesday yielded further talks on how to extend Bush-era tax breaks scheduled to expire at the end of the year, as well as an acknowledgement from Obama that he needs to reach out more to Republicans.

Originally proposed by Obama as a half-day event that could extend into dinner, the meeting was postponed once by Republican leaders and ended up lasting about two hours. Afterward, Obama and Republican leaders said they wanted to work together, but they also made clear that sharp differences exist on major issues. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the expected incoming House speaker, said the fact that the meeting was civil did not guarantee success or progress...

Obama and the Senate Republicans described the talks as civil and frank. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia said he was encouraged that Obama acknowledged that he should have reached out more to Republicans in his first two years in office and that Tuesday's meeting would be the first in a series of discussions on working together. Boehner also said Obama conceded not spending enough time working with Republicans...

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed that Obama told the GOP leaders that he needed to do a better job in seeking consensus. "I think the president laid out that in order for us to work together, we're going to have to communicate," Gibbs said. "The president was pretty clearly in acknowledging that he needed to do better, and he would." Asked whether Obama was bending to Republicans by saying he needed to reach out more to them, Gibbs said: "I'm not sure I call that bending; I call that trying to work together."

In remarks after the event, Obama said he invited Republican and Democratic leaders to meet with him again several times in the future, including one summit at Camp David.

[AndyTiedye]

1. Every Time Democrats Lose, the Party Lurches Further to the Right

[Marr]

29. Every time they win, too.

Odd, isn't it? If they win, it's a ringing endorsement of "moderate" politics and "bipartisan compromise". If they lose, it's proof that we need more "moderate" politics and "bipartisan compromise".

[fascisthunter]

BS... he is to the right to begin with

anyone thinks he's a progressive.... puhleeeeese!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. If he reaches out MORE to the Republicans...

He will become one.

[AnArmyVeteran]

8. You're right, but I think he passed that point a long time ago.

I have absolutely no idea who that guy in the White House is. During my life I've had many presidents and I could understand where each of them were coming from, even dunces like Bush. But not Obama. I'm not saying this in a flattering way, just the opposite. I truly have no idea who that guy is running our country.

I worked my ass off for a year trying to get him elected. I was one of his delegates. But any sign of candidate-Obama disappeared long, long ago, actually on January 20, 2009. Who the hell is this guy?

I've had people (democrats) talk with me wondering if Obama has been bought off, or had his family threatened or something else that is preventing him from doing anything with courage. I've never seen such timidity or cowardice like this in my lifetime. Something is very, very fishy.

[Demoiselle]

3. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[XemaSab]

4. To those of us in the field

his behavior in the house looks an awful lot like collusion with the masters.

[jaxx]

5. Which says, what are they going to do?

The President will now let them eat their words.

[maxsolomon]

6. Cantor said, Boehner also said...

i'm really tired of this shit.

[AnArmyVeteran]

7. Please wake me from this nightmare!!!

This sounds like something from the Onion. How can Obama possibly say he should have worked harder with republicans? This is borderline delusional.

[Radical Activist]

20. All you have to do is turn off the corporate press.

Obama didn't say it. The headline is bullshit. You're being played.

[Little Star]

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs also said that bullshit.

Gibbs said Obama did say it. Who should we believe you or Gibbs?

Try Google

[inna]

21. my reaction exactly. i thought it was a headline from the Onion, not CNN or whatever.

what amazes me though is that it's like he no longer CARES at all about what the "little people" (i.e., not ve$ted interests) think.


he could not care less, and it could not be more obvious.

[Bonhomme Richard]

9. He doesn't seem to have a clue. (FACEPALM) n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. I can't take the self-flogging anymore.

[AspenRose]

11. *sigh*

*shaking head*

[Me.]

12. Jesus Wept!

[onethatcares]

13. aw fuck, we went from "Yes We Can" to

"May we kiss your ass" in two short years.

The only thing he would have to do to get a better consensus with those bastard is change parties mid term and give us the finger on Fox news.

as Gibbs said, " I'm not sure I call that bending". noshitsherlock, I call that bowing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Birds of a feather...

[Bluebear]

15. Good grief. nt

[Quantess]

16. Obama is just not that into us.

At least he's up front about it, and has stopped trying to lead us on.

[Radical Activist]

18. You let CNN fool you with that headline?

Do you liked being manipulated by the corporate press?

[inna]

22. lol lol

[Radical Activist]

24. So no meaningful response.

Yep.

[inna]

27. lol sorry, you really crack me up sometimes. nt

[Radical Activist]

28. Thanks!

I'm surprised that someone can be so skeptical of Obama and so gullible about the corporate press.

[Quantess]

23. Okay, so maybe it was a little exaggerated reporting

But still, it fits right in with everything else Obama has capitulated on. Hard to deny it...

[Radical Activist]

25. Despite all the rumors and accusations

of capitulation, I look at actual results. And although there were some disappointing defeats in the Senate, I haven't seen capitulation.

[Marr]

30. I haven't seen any "capitulation" either. I've seen a lot of sleazy maneuvering,

moving their stated agenda into losing positions, from which they very anxiously "compromise".

Honestly-- do you think Obama is so stupid that he doesn't understand how to negotiate? Over and over, he's begun the process by "compromising" everything he might've been expected to... and then gone from there. My six-year-old niece understands that's not how you haggle, and I'm sure Obama is several times more cagey than she is.

[BzaDem]

31. Why do you think that this is a negotiation?

For there to be a negotiation, both sides have to prefer action over the default position of inaction. (Otherwise one side will walk away regardless of the deal.)

When there are 60 Democratic votes in the Senate, and 60 votes needed to pass anything, and a few Conservative Senators who couldn't care LESS if a bill was passed, there is no negotiation. It is a dictation of terms. The 60th Senator dictates the terms, and says "you will accept these terms, and in exchange, you will have my vote." That's it. Obama could offer something more to the left, at which the 60th Senator respectfully declines and leaves the room (and then laughs later).

[Marr]

32. You're actually endorsing complete capitulation?

That's just odd.

If the process you described was accurate, total capitulation would be the stupidest thing to do. You'd be advancing your opponent's legislative goals and not making them spend an ounce of political capital to do it. If you actually wanted to move their agenda, on the other hand, it'd be a pretty nice angle to use.

[BzaDem]

35. "You'd be advancing your opponent's legislative goals"

No, that is not the case. Ben Nelson would have much preferred no bill passed. Far from "advancing his agenda," he cost himself his re-election by voting for this bill. He would have been more than happy to kill it entirely (probably ensuring his re-election) if it was too liberal for him.

[Radical Activist]

17. Wow. What a misleading headline.

It doesn't match the quote from Gibbs at all. But people will still eat this up. More fodder for the outrage cult.

[Lucian]

19. He should just finalize it and put an "R" behind his name.

[Swamp Rat]

26. In light of the GOP response to bipartisanship over the past two years, that is very audacious

:eyes:

[Raine]

33. To work with them any closer would mean actually registering in their party. nt

x(

[opihimoimoi]

34. Obama needs to stonewall any move to extend tax cuts for the uber rich. They got 750 Billion so far.

why should we continue building their wealth?...we lost jobs...not gained....that 750 bil was a waste of our national rev source...

[Warren Stupidity]

36. wuss. nt

[TBF]

37. And they accuse US of being on drugs... if he were any further right he'd push Ron Paul

off the scale ...

[rasputin1952]

38. The GOP was in it's last gasp for air...

and because of a lack of drive, it came back to life. Work w/these people...no way. Crush them before the entire country goes to hell in a andbasket.

Fort the record, D's staying at home during the last cycle had more to do w/the GOP taking back the House than anything else, but seeing D's not coalescing into a fighting force is just as depressing...:(

[gulliver]

39. Looks like CNN screwed up again.

The CNN headline comes from the Republican interpretation of what Obama said. It's just pathetic. Per Gibbs, Obama said something like "we're going to have to communicate," and Obama "needed to do better" at communicating. That doesn't translate to Obama admitting "he should have worked better with them." CNN just needed a headline that continued the election loss narrative and appealed to both Republicans and Democrats. The person that wrote it probably lives and dies by hit counts, not points for accuracy.

If I were interpreting it, I would take it to mean that Obama is doing exactly the right thing and pushing for more communication with Republicans. It is in the Republicans' interests not to communicate with Obama. They lose when they do. If the Republicans communicate more with Obama, their talking points will evaporate. They know that, and that is why they didn't communicate with the White House in the last Congress except via Fox News.

[Bluebear]

41. wow

[meow mix]

40. spinally deficient democrat

maybe we should start demanding xrays of the back region, during elections.