Support NeoGAF

[CharlieDigital]

DAT PRAGMATISM

I dunno, I had realistic expectations from day 1.

 

[richiek]

"Yes, we can, but..." :lol

EDIT: props on getting rid of the filibuster.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Filibusters should be like timeouts. You only get like, 2 per year or something.

 

[Tamanon]

"Can I just make a plug? Go vote"

 

[smokeymicpot]

Obama making plugs for the election.

Nice job with the interview.

 

[besada]

Posted in the wrong thread.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Interesting interview.

Regarding the blogger meeting this afternoon, here's a transcript:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/obamas-interview-with-progressive-bloggers_n_775112.html

I think he comes across as the most sane, sensible, pragmatic, and balanced person in politics right now.

 

[Fifty]

So the Obama-interview will be the entire show tomorrow? Interesting. First time that's ever happened.

I'm pretty sure that within the last two years or so Clinton was on and they gave him the full episode.

 

[CharlieDigital]

So in each of these cases, this glass isn't full, but it's got a lot of water in it. And so I guess my point is that on all these debates, my constant calculation has been, are we better off going ahead and getting this done? Or are we -- is it better for us to have a fight that may end up being symbolically satisfying but means that we lose because we just don't have enough votes.

I guess I'd make two points. The first is, I'm President and not king. And so I've got to get a majority in the House and I've got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.

Now, during the course -- the 21 months of my presidency so far, I think we had 60 votes in the Senate for seven months, six? I mean, it was after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. So that's a fairly narrow window. So we're right at the number, and that presumes that there is uniformity within the Democratic caucus in the Senate -- which, Barbara, you've been around a while. You know that not every Democrat in the Democratic caucus agrees with me or agrees with each other in terms of complicated issues like health care.

Needs more repeating.

+

What keeps me up at night is China, Germany, India, Brazil -- they're moving. They make decisions, we're going to pursue clean energy, and the next thing you know they've cornered half the clean energy market; we're going to develop high-speed rail in the span of five years -- suddenly they've got high-speed rail lines going; we're going to promote exports, here's what we're going to do -- boom, they get going.

And if we can't sort of execute on key issues that will determine our competitiveness over the long term, we're going to fall behind -- we are going to fall behind.

And the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. The filibuster, if you look at the history of it, may have arisen purely by accident because somebody didn't properly apply Robert's Rules of Procedure and forgot to get a provision in there about what was required to close debate. And folks figured out very early, this could be a powerful tool. It was used as a limited tool throughout its history. Sadly, the primary way it was used was to prevent African Americans from achieving civil rights.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I really don't get the Obama hate. I mean first off, yes he isn't the best president ever, but it's not like he's done a shit job. I mean the economy didn't completely go under and it has been slowly improving (from what I understand if not somebody please correct me), we've made a bit of progress in pulling out of Iraq, closed Guantanamo, etc. And yes the health care reform was bullshit and from looking outside it looks like he isn't doing near what he could be, but people have to remember he isn't a dictator. There has too be ton of support from "lesser" political officials to have things move forward.

Again I don't agree with everything he's supported. Afghanistan War (lol), DATD against policy, etc. Personally I'd say he's merely as an "above average " president. But I don't see how people could label him as "horrible".

What keeps me up at night is China, Germany, India, Brazil -- they're moving. They make decisions, we're going to pursue clean energy, and the next thing you know they've cornered half the clean energy market; we're going to develop high-speed rail in the span of five years -- suddenly they've got high-speed rail lines going; we're going to promote exports, here's what we're going to do -- boom, they get going.

And if we can't sort of execute on key issues that will determine our competitiveness over the long term, we're going to fall behind -- we are going to fall behind.

And the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. The filibuster, if you look at the history of it, may have arisen purely by accident because somebody didn't properly apply Robert's Rules of Procedure and forgot to get a provision in there about what was required to close debate. And folks figured out very early, this could be a powerful tool. It was used as a limited tool throughout its history. Sadly, the primary way it was used was to prevent African Americans from achieving civil rights.

Agreed.

 

[Scuba Steve]

Obama: "Jon, I hate you, and I completely disagree."

 

[Thomper]

I'm pretty sure that within the last two years or so Clinton was on and they gave him the full episode.

Nope, Clinton never was on while he was president. He's been on the show about three times since, but never while he was in-office. Which makes sense, because in 2000 The Daily Show wasn't really taken seriously yet as a place for politicians to be interviewed. It's only over the last few years that it started to actually make sense for politicians to appear on the show.

 

[theBishop]

I really don't buy the fillibuster as the root of all evil. Obama could've used his bully pulpit (and campaign resources) to force "conservative" Democrats to vote the right way on bills being filibustered.

 

[Diablos]

I really don't buy the fillibuster as the root of all evil. Obama could've used his bully pulpit (and campaign resources) to force "conservative" Democrats to vote the right way on bills being filibustered.

Bullshit.

 

[Shaneus]

Watching this in Australia now... what did Larry Summers do that was so bizarre?

 

[RagnarokX]

Watching this in Australia now... what did Larry Summers do that was so bizarre?

"He did a heck of a job"

When Katrina destroyed New Orleans George Bush told the director of FEMA "Heck of a job, Brownie" when he very clearly did a terrible job.

 

[Fatalah]

Just have to say, can they limit the amount of fan reaction next time? It's almost unwatchable.

 

[jmdajr]

anyone got a link to the full interview?

edit: on his site. I'm good.

 

[Zenith]

any mention of DADT?

 

[N4Us]

Haha, I can't believe that NMA clip got featured:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz31FDhY4qw

 

[WillyFive]

I really don't buy the fillibuster as the root of all evil. Obama could've used his bully pulpit (and campaign resources) to force "conservative" Democrats to vote the right way on bills being filibustered.

I don't think his party is as idealistic or as close-knit together under one set of values as the Republicans are.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Please tell me they are going to rip the fillibuster apart into a million pieces.

 

[avatar299]

really classy trying to connect the filibuster to racist legislation. I'm sure the next time a filibuster is used by democrats that will be brought up.

Man just moves from one scapegoat to the next

 

[ThLunarian]

"He did a heck of a job"

When Katrina destroyed New Orleans George Bush told the director of FEMA "Heck of a job, Brownie" when he very clearly did a terrible job.

I think that was Mike Brown, hence "Brownie". I don't know who Larry Sommers is either, though.

 

[PoliceCop]

Everyone who said that Stewart was going to give him a softball interview should come back to this thread and eat their crow.

 

[Henchmen21]

Just liked to say loved the other night with Wyatt's adlib.

 

[Firestorm]

That episode may have been significant enough to warrant a new thread if someone wants to make one. The audience was annoying as hell (HE DEFENDED HIMSELF, CHEEEEEERRRRR) but good show otherwise.

 

[lawlohwhat]

Everyone who said that Stewart was going to give him a softball interview should come back to this thread and eat their crow.

uhhhhh... :lol

 

[blame space]

by the time this came on i was absolutely obliterated and i punched a hole in the wall for some reason.

i think it was after "yes, we can, but.."

 

[state-of-the-art]

really classy trying to connect the filibuster to racist legislation. I'm sure the next time a filibuster is used by democrats that will be brought up.

Man just moves from one scapegoat to the next

I'm not sure why you're upset about this. Did you think he was somehow implicating conservatives?

 

[Milabrega]

Okay yeah, there were tits, dongs and sex all over the background for Wyatt's segment. I know that was a part of the skit but I think they may see a hefty fine for that. The sex yeah was shadows, but behind Wyatt at first was a lady on stilts with her tits out, and I was like wait wtf did I just see tits, five seconds later, a dude on stilts with his dick out.

 

[B.K.]

This has been the best week of The Daily Show in years.

Edit: Keep fucking that chicken reference. :lol

 

[nyong]

really classy trying to connect the filibuster to racist legislation. I'm sure the next time a filibuster is used by democrats that will be brought up.

Man just moves from one scapegoat to the next

Yeah, that was pretty shameless, not to mention completely random. I mean, he was almost certainly given these questions well in advance...wtf was he thinking?

 

[AniHawk]

Yeah, that was pretty shameless, not to mention completely random. I mean, he was almost certainly given these questions well in advance...wtf was he thinking?

oh bitch, bitch, bitch

 

[nyong]

oh bitch, bitch, bitch

Well, that comment was pretty ridiculous and damaged an otherwise outstanding conversation. Labeling Republicans as racist is a debate tactic I would expect to see here, but not from the president.

 

[Shiggie]

Well, that comment was pretty ridiculous and damaged an otherwise outstanding conversation. Labeling Republicans as racist is a debate tactic I would expect to see here, but not from the president.

Facts are facts.

 

[giga]

Well, that comment was pretty ridiculous and damaged an otherwise outstanding conversation. Labeling Republicans as racist is a debate tactic I would expect to see here, but not from the president.

Take off the tin foil hat for a second. It was just an example of how ridiculous the filibuster rule is. Republicans weren’t even the ones responsible for the filibuster in 1964.

 

[GaimeGuy]

To avatar and nyong:

Obama was just trying to show how ridiculous the fillibuster is, not say "REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST!" Get your heads out of your asses.

Also, you have demonstrated complete ignorance of history. The Civil Rights Act was filibustered by southern democrats (and one republican, IIRC). You two are idiots.

 

[SouthernDragon]

He just said that the filibuster was used against civil rights. He didn't say which party.

Why do you assume that he's referring to Republicans? You do realize that a good chunk of Democrats were heavily opposed, and Johnson signed that bill knowing it'd cripple the Democrats for generations politically.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Even if you had only an elementary knowledge of the history of the poltiical parties, you should be able to guess that a filibuster on civil rights legislation in the 1960s was by southern democrats.

Next time you feign outrage, make sure you're not being a complete idiot in the process

Flight: it wasn't' a good number of dems. it WAS dems. Southern conservatives were aligned with the dems from the great depression through the civil rights movement (Which pushed them to the GOP). That's how the GOP became so conservative in the 70s and later.

 

[nyong]

Take off the tin foil hat for a second. It was just an example of how ridiculous the filibuster rule is. Republicans weren’t even the ones responsible for the filibuster in 1964.

It's arguably ridiculous, yet has been used historically for the same purpose in other nations.

I see its recent usage in terms of Game Theory: specifically tit-for-tat. A lot of this partisan BS started with Bush Jr. where anything and everything connected with the right was ridiculed and marginalized. And yes, the Democrats--as Obama admitted--frequently employed the filibuster for partisan aims. What we're seeing now is the "tat" following the "tit." I'm not sure why the Democrats (cluelessly) expected the Republicans to forgive and forget everything that had happened under Bush--and continued to happen throughout the McCain campaign--once they took office. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could have predicted this result. I'm also not sure what it's going to take for the partisan deadlock to be breached, but I do know that looking for a racist boogeyman will prove fruitless.

Democrats Have Only Themselves to Blame for Filibuster Problems

 

[RagnarokX]

I think that was Mike Brown, hence "Brownie". I don't know who Larry Sommers is either, though.

Obama said Larry did a heck of a job.
Bush said Brown did a heck of a job.

The audience laughed at the unintentional reference to a negative Bush moment.

 

[GaimeGuy]

It's arguably ridiculous, yet has been used historically for the same purpose in other nations.

I see its recent usage in terms of Game Theory: specifically tit-for-tat. A lot of this partisan BS started with Bush Jr. where anything and everything connected with the right was ridiculed and marginalized. And yes, the Democrats--as Obama admitted--frequently employed the filibuster for partisan aims. What we're seeing now is the "tat" following the "tit." I'm not sure why the Democrats (cluelessly) expected the Republicans to forgive and forget everything that had happened under Bush--and continued to happen throughout the McCain campaign--once they took office. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could have predicted this result. I'm also not sure what it's going to take for partisan deadlock to be breached, but I do know that looking for a racist boogeyman will prove fruitless.

The racists who filibustered the Civil Rights Act that Obama was speaking of were Democrats. Obama was talking about the filibuster and its misuse over the last fifty years, not about who is and who isn't a racist. You are fucking retarded

 

[nyong]

The racists who filibustered the Civil Rights Act that Obama was speaking of were Democrats. You are fucking retarded

Obama was drawing an explicit parallel between those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act to thwart progress, and the Republicans who now filibuster his agenda.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Not to mention that if this is tit-for-tat, the response is grossly disproportionate.

 

[nyong]

Not to mention that if this is tit-for-tat, the response is grossly disproportionate.

Right or wrong, that's the way things typically work. Politics is a lot like warfare.

 

[CharlieDigital]

The racists who filibustered the Civil Rights Act that Obama was speaking of were Democrats. You are fucking retarded

There are a few guys in PoliGAF that will find any reason to hate on Obama without concern for reality. Avatar229, MadOdorMachine, Kittonwy, Gaborn. And now we can add nyong to that list. Facts? Pfffftttttttttt. I gots GAME THEORY BITCHES!

 

[Zabka]

A lot of this partisan BS started with Bush Jr.

I'd say it started when the Republicans impeached Clinton for trivial bullshit.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Obama was drawing an explicit parallel between those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act to thwart progress, and the Republicans who now filibuster his agenda.

erm, did you skip over where he acknowledged that the dems (and he, himself, in fact) had abused the filibuster during the Bush administration? You can't be this fucking stupid, can you?

 

[giga]

Obama was drawing an explicit parallel between those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act to thwart progress, and the Republicans who now filibuster his agenda.

Therefore, the Republicans are being labeled as racist? What sort of inference is this and who taught you it?