What the hell are you talking about? Please show some kind of evidence?

the bold black letters in the post link to an obama interview stating the need to pass the bill "in order to maintain a strong presidency"

Of course, the best joke in the world will be on any democrat who believes any promise Obama, Pelosi or Reid makes to them about fixing the Senate bill in reconciliation. "Oh course Congressman Gullible, we'll remove the abortion funding in the reconciliation process, right after you pass the Senate bill in the House." "You will? Gosh, I'll vote for it right away!"

The minute the Senate bill is passed in the House, it will rushed to the Oval Office where it will be signed by Obama. "But you said you'd keep your promise! Why did you do that?"

"You knew I was a rattlesnake when you agreed to help me."

"the bold black letters in the post link to an obama interview stating the need to pass the bill "in order to maintain a strong presidency"

So what is your evidence that he was speaking about his own personal legacy, rather than the strength of the office in general?

Doc Wash,
Any reference that Obama has made over the last two years has been to him. Thus when he says he wants to maintain the presidency, it is Obama speak for "keep me pumped up". He has little concern for the balance of powers. That is evident in his every move.

So what is your evidence that he was speaking about his own personal legacy, rather than the strength of the office in general? Posted by Doc Washboard at March 6, 2010 12:11 PM

Well, the language itself-"my presidency"-is a pretty good clue. At least for anyone who can read English and knows the difference between a possessive pronoun and an article. Also, over two years of watching Obama displaying his malignant narcissism is more than sufficient evidence.

Obama wants to be another FDR--his personal legacy. If it vaporizes some Democrats, no problem for him as long as it saves HIS presidency. It won't, but no one can tell TheWon that fact. Probably because TheWon is too dumb and too unrealistic (years of sitting listening to Rev Wright's bigotry and hate will do that) to know that he is destroying himself. And Obama will stick his snout in the air attending his never-ending string of White House parties the whole time as well.

"Well, the language itself-'my presidency'-is a pretty good clue."

Yes, it would be a fantastic clue if it hadn't been made up.

The actual quote apparently was, "To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill." See? An article, not a possessive pronoun.

So CY's ginned-up dismay——"Wow. ...and my presidency"——is based on something that the president didn't say, at least in the linked article. (But let's not let pesky facts get in the way of our fun.)

You might want to try reading the articles before you start trying to teach grammar to an English teacher, iconoclast.

I still think this isn't about HCR alone.

It's about HCR and immigration reform, which together can give the Democrats a new majority.

The old majority, which included seniors, is in danger because even they realize that eventually the seniors are going to get dumped on, either by the Republicans or the Democrats .. it will happen and the other party won't be able to bring them back .. a lose-lose. So the new strategy is to dump the seniors now and add in millions of new immigrants to the Democratic election rolls with health care, the way FDR won over the Blacks from the Republicans.

Doc W, you're an idiot. Sorry, there's no way to soften it. Who, besides a complete fool, would grant that the effect on the presidency (either MY presidency or THE presidency) is in any way a valid reason to pass the bill?

"Also, over two years of watching Obama displaying his malignant narcissism is more than sufficient evidence."

There's also that aspect - consider the source. Based on Obama's record of incredible and unwarranted self-regard, I for one have absolutely no problem with the conclusion that it's HIS presidency that is meant.

How about we call you "Doc Clinton", since you are metaphorically arguing about the definition of "is"?

A follow-up to Doc W's comment: Am I the only one who's noticed that the liberal/lefties, the alleged masters of nuance, who continually portray conservatives as the folks who see things in black & white, are usually the ones who resort to seeing things in black & white?

"Well, he said THE presidency, so he COULDN'T be referring to himself..."

But the conservatives are the unintelligent rubes. Yeah. Right.

"To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill."

Every lie reveals some truth.

Here the lie is "to maintain a strong presidency" in that this bill does not MAINTAIN some presidential power, but grants power never before had to the presidency.

So, to paraphrase this as, 'Don't forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency' is as (in)accurate as the lie.

The truth is for the speaker, the President, to get that power, "we need to pass this bill."

President Obama has invested a lot of political capital into this effort to strengthen the presidency - do not let him down, pass it now so that he may enjoy the fruits of his labor.

I thought democrats were against a "strong presidency" given the "abuses" of executive power during the Bush years.

Is that meme old and busted now?

Doc

I cannot seem to find the article again, but I did check it and read the "my presidency" line. It seems you are engaging in some creative history. Not much of a surprise for an Obami.

Doc, did you click the link? It was a lefty blog that said that line, which I quoted quite accurately.

OF course, Doc lacks the intellectual integrity to go after one the source when it is one of his own.

Right, Doc?

Oops. I was searching the wrong site. I did find it here and found that TPM interpreted Obama's comments as "my presidency".

There must have been others besides leftard thug Grijalva reporting as well. This was clearly about Obama (isn't everything?) and these thugs recognized it (one thug knows another).

Doc is distracted. One of the left's allies (Adam Gadahn) was recently captured in Pakistan and the whole seething mass of anger without intelligence known as the Left is moving to grant this killer a civil trial in NY....

"Right, Doc?"

Well, I'd answer, but I'm afraid that my comment would disappear down the memory hole, just like the last one.

Some have commented that Obama is trying to be like FDR. I have to agree that he is succeeding. FDR inherited an economic downturn that was global in scope. He then proceeded to inact policies and laws that robed us of our freedom and at the same time worsened the economic distress. In fact, the nation only recovered after his death and the distruction of all other economies of relivance. Note that most of the world recovered from the economic downturn within a few years. Ours was from 1929 to 1952 principally due to FDR's programs.

Ours was from 1929 to 1952 principally due to FDR's programs. Posted by David at March 7, 2010 05:42 PM

personal power is all "progressives" really want. Obama is just a recent--and rather incompetent--example of the megalomania and narcissism of the Left. Their appetite for power and the graft gained through that power overwhelms their limited intellect--they don't realize that if everyone becomes richer they will as well. Their disproven zero-sum game view of economics only allows them to imagine taking wealth from someone else with political power. The idea of actually creating something to earn that wealth is completely foreign to them.

For anyone who cares, Doc Washboard is an extremely well-known troll. He's been around CY's place (and many others) under many guises. The last I knew he blogged at "Mike's Dumb America". I refused to even give him one hit so if you really want to investigate then Google will get you there. I'd stay away though...cesspools tend to leave their mark.

"Doc Washboard is an extremely well-known troll."

Why, PhyCon, you just gave me a boner.

Unfortunately, the rest of your post is incorrect.

1) It was "Mike's Dumbmerica," not "Mike's Dumb America."

2) The site hasn't existed for a long time, so Googling will do nothing.

3) If you refused to "give [me] even one hit," then how do you know how cesspool-like the site was?

Virulent opinion about something he admits to knowing nothing about? Done and done! PhyCon must be a wingnut!

I reviewed that site several months ago when you made your appearance at ACW and posted from my memories of said visit. My refusal to "give him one hit" was in reference to my comment above.

Your site was (presuming it is dead) a cesspool attacking a conservative site.

Done and done? Not while you still spout your continuing bilge.