The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

He's more than sleaze, he is a corporate dirt bag. He was invovled in the biggest corporate health care scandal in which the company he ran, and was fired from, was fined 1.7 billion dollars and plead guilty to 14 felony counts of fraud. Of course, being a white collar criminal he walked away with his millions and started more companies.

 

Of course he's a sleaze Chandos... he's opposing a policy of St. Obama.

I personally do not believe the health care reform is going to work. It's going to take too much money to fix the system without radically altering the system (even then, it will cost too much). Obama is being fiscally reckless right now and spending far more than he has -- this is the same complaint I had with the previous administration.

 

Bruno, I agree to a point, but what choice does he have? At least he's probably spending it in better places than cronies like Halliburton. Obama has no choice but to try to spend the US out of its economic woes. Let's just hope it works.

 

Oh, yeah. Just ignore the facts and feel free to blame the criminal behavior of the company of which SCOTT WAS CEO on Obama. There's nothing like ignoring the evidence is there, T2? Before you accuse anyone else of being a partisan hack, I suggest you take a good look in the mirror.

 

I can look in the mirror, Chandos. But lately, everyone who opposes Obama is a sleaze in your posts. Just as everyone who thought Bush was right in anything was a sleaze. It just gets old.

The president really is human; he really is not perfect. I like the guy, he's just spending too much of my great-great-great-grandchildren's money. I have no problems with people questioning the government's policies -- I really don't care who is questioning health care reform as long as they bring to light valid issues. Being a crook doesn't mean someone doesn't understand the issues (often the opposite is true).

I wouldn't vote for Scott (I don't like the guy). But he is well within his right and ability to question the president (as we all are). Mud slinging is not necessary.

 

I also think Scott is a sleaze, but it has nothing to do with his opposition to Obama. I think he's a sleaze for the same reason I think Ken Lay was a sleaze. I think he's a sleaze for the same reason I think John Edwards* is a sleaze. I think he's a sleaze for the same reason I consider Jesse Jackson and Jimmy Swaggart sleazes. It has nothing to do with the stances these people have on the issues. Scott is a sleaze because the company he ran was invovled in the biggest corporate health care scandal in which the company he ran was fined 1.7 billion dollars and plead guilty to 14 felony counts of fraud, not because he opposes Obama's health care reform.

Reasoned opposition like yours to what Obama is trying to do will lessen wasteful spending, will improve the targeting of services, and will generally improve the final draft. Reasoned opposition like yours is also absolutely necessary. Scott, however, is not the man to provide it.

* I readily admit that he had me fooled for a long time (to my shame, I even supported him in the Iowa Caucus).

 

This not about Scott, nor is it about Obama. It is about reforming a broken system. I did not bring Scott into this debate, someone else did. When someone else brought up Scott's creditials, I challenged them. Sorry, it's so hard for you to deal with. It's a plain fact that the policital discourse is somewhat nasty these days. And there has been a mountain of mud slung at Obama by the other side, even on this board. You seem to have no complaints there, but as soon as one of your conservatives gets a bit thrown in his direction you come out complaining. It gets "old."

I have nothing against you personally, T2. But there is enough "political hackery" to go around on both sides.

BTW, "Senator" Burris is a sleaze as well...And I agree with what Drew said.

 

Absolute agreement on Senator Burris. I can't believe I forgot to include him on my list. That guy's a douche and a half.

 

Now, that's not true. I have come to his defense on several occasions. I usually don't need to because others present the arguments I normally would.

I really don't mind at all if you challenge someone's credentials -- it is the tone of the challenge that can be distracting. A well thought out rebuttal is far more affective than a few random quotes and name calling.

Drew: I don't think John Edwards was a sleaze. Unless I'm really out of the Edwards slam fest I thought his only real "sleaze" factor was the affair (and lying about it -- but, really now, what man wouldn't?). I just think he's a human with weaknesses. I can't imagine the pressures that were on him and have no desire to judge him.

 

I only judge Edwards in the sense that he had no business still running for the highest office in the land with an affair in his past that he was actively trying to conceal. That doesn't make him a bad person, per se - we all make mistakes and lapses in judgment - but it does make him a sleaze. And maybe I'm a little bit of an idealist, but it says to me that he put his personal ambition for the prestige of the office above the success of the office itself. Sure, everyone who seeks the Presidency does this to a degree, but Edwards had to have been seriously deluding himself to think it his affair would never have come to light.

Add to that the fact that Edward's family life (his kids and the tragic loss of one of them, his wife's considerable popularity and cancer battle, etc.) was such a central part of his identity and appeal that his misdeeds elevate to more than a mere "personal indiscretion." In the court of public opinion, you can cheat on Hillary Clinton, a strong, independent woman that many people already dislike, and the public will eventually forgive you. Cheat on a cancer-stricken wife who's already had to deal with the death of a young child? That's unforgivable. It would have been an irrecoverable disaster for his Presidency had he been elected, and since I'm certain he had to have known that and went ahead with the cover-up and Presidential run anyway, that makes him a sleaze in my book. But that's me.

Humans with weaknesses should know their limitations. No one made him run for the highest office in the land. Twice.My sympathy for John Edwards is very limited, personally.

 

T2 - As I remarked, I did not want to make this personal. I think you are a fine fellow, and a good poster on this board. But I believe that the "tone" on this board, and in many other places in the media in general, has become somwhat "snarky" on both sides.

There are always issues that people feel strongly about. But there are issues that some feel passionate about. For some it's abortion, or gay rights, or taxes. Mine is health care. That is THE issue for me. I disliked Scott ever since I read his comments that "non-profit hospitals should be run out of business," because they were a drag on the free market. That was before the scandal with Columbia Hospitals was even an issue. Nevertheless, I resisted bringing him into the debate until someone else mentioned him. I already knew in advance about his role in the opposition to Obama's health care reform through MoveOn, which was elated that he was chosen to represent the opposition.

When Obama's people asked for my support for his reform, I refused until I knew that his reform would include a public option, and I informed his people that I would withhold my support until I could see some of the details of his plan. My point is that this is not about Obama, but about a system that is broken by greed and fraud. Scott represents a part of the problem, rather than a solution, IMO.

 

To be honest, though, I don't think the affair made him a sleaze either. I think he's a sleaze because, after engaging in a long term affair on his terminally ill wife, he proceeded to run for president against her wishes while fully aware of the fact that the affair would quite possibly come out during the vetting process and further humiliate his dying wife -- and on top of that, he ran as a "family values" guy with all the "moral authority" it entails. Had he not grasped at the "moral authority" that comes with being a "family values guy", I would not consider him a sleaze.

He would not have needed to come clean with his affair, either (It really isn't any of our business), and a simple mea culpa would have been sufficient for me, at least, as it was with Clinton (who, I would add, proved conclusively that moral authority is most assuredly not necessary to govern effectively). I withheld judgment until his wife came out and spoke to the press, revealing that the whole thing was much more sordid than I really expected. People make mistakes and have lapses in judgment. Edwards is guilty of far more than "a simple lapse in judgment." When I say what he did to his wife was awful or call him a hypocrite and a lying sack of ****, I'm not really talking about the affair.

 

As a barely relevant aside, he isn't Saint Obama, he's Barack the Barbarian (issue 1 variant cover: Red Sarah).

Yes, you can't see yourself when you do. We're on to you.

 

I know what Chandos was implying -- but I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you can elaborate.

 

Ah, the sentence is missing a but. I was implying that you're a vampire. And I was deadly serious.

 

Hmm, talking about sleaze - who is that young lady next to him? Methinks she does not really look like Mrs Obama, perhaps after this boring healthcare reform is more or less done we could have a nice little sex scandal. Even better, now we also have someone to fight the Governator on a more or less equal footing. Bets, anyone? Popcorn?

 

No, as Godzilla vs King Kong clearly shows, it's the producers favorite that wins.

 

Super Obama

Absolutely hysterical... This is extremely well done in my opinion. JibJab presents:

 

That was awesome! They're getting so much more advanced, and their production values are impressive.