Obama caught in a lie, or just incompetent?

Obama was caught telling a lie in a speech on Capitol Hill today; trying to pass off fictional information to people thinking they are just stupid in order to gain sympathy for the lousy job his party is doing.

In this story Obama is quoted as saying:

Senate Republicans, he said, have tried to employ the filibuster more over the past year than in all of the 1950s and 1960s combined. The GOP's strategy has been "20 years of obstruction packed into one," he said.

www.cnn.com...

However, in order to obtain a filibuster you need 41 votes.

users.mikrotec.com...

Republicans couldn't have possibly executed a successful filibuster. If you look at the U.S. Senate roster here, you find that you have 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 1 Independent.

www.senate.gov...

So what is the conclusion? That Obama is trying to blame Republicans, once again, for obstructing Democrats' "progress" in getting things done when the Democrats have had House AND Senate majorities since the 2008 election.

And just an FYI - I'm not taking credit for this find - Hugh Hewitt actually pointed it out today, but I did go to the U.S. Senate website and confirmed the number of Senators by party and confirmed the votes for a filibuster needed. Hugh Hewitt's article on this is here:

www.hughhewitt.com...

[edit on 4-2-2010 by sos37]

He said "tried to employ the filibuster" the key word is TRIED.



And the Anti Obama train rolls along.

Originally posted by whatukno
He said "tried to employ the filibuster" the key word is TRIED.

And the Anti Obama train rolls along.

I tried to shoot a deer a couple weeks ago. The whole problem was, I did not have a gun!

You deserved that one whatukno.

Blaming the Repubs, blaming Bush, blaming The Tea Party, blaming citizens, etc etc etc. This president is beginning to sound like a petulant CHILD. Wo is me! Maybe it is not everyone else and just maybe, we do not want a fascist/socialistic/corporatist government structure.

Maybe it is time for him to do what is best for the country, instead of what is best for the government!

The president has a streak going, let us count the lies shall we? Nah, I do not want to be here for the next 3 hours.

reply to post by endisnighe

I tried to shoot a deer a couple weeks ago. The whole problem was, I did not have a gun!

Gun wouldn't do you much good without bullets. You could try all you wanted, but without a bullet in the chamber, well, your just dry firing.

Of course, that analogy can show what is wrong with the Republican party, they have a lot of guns, but no bullets.

[edit on 2/4/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by sos37


I believe he was using the wrong term for what he meant. The Republicans in the legislature are clearly going to have a knee-jerk "NO!" reaction to everything - Obama was looking for "obstructionist" and since for some damn reason, "obstruction" and "filibuster" have become synonyms in the beltway media, he probably just mushmouthed it.

I, for one, am glad to have a president who makes the news when he misspeaks. With the last guy, it was just a given.

"Is our childrens learning" indeed.

Surely a Democratic senator can also vote in the filibuster (is it just me or is that name utterly ridiculous ... sounds like a rodeo show).
So 40 Republicans and 5 Democrats can vote for it to pass (for example) unless it has to voted along strictly party lines.

Am I correct?

I vote incompetent!!
Clearly this is the case and not just on this issue. The Presidency is WAY over Obama's head.

reply to post by WhatTheory


Well, again...

It's nice to finally have a president of whom we can afford to have expectations, one way or another.

I think the answer to the original question is that he is an "incompetent liar."

Originally posted by whatukno
He said "tried to employ the filibuster" the key word is TRIED.

And the Anti Obama train rolls along.

So let them TRY. The point is without the votes they can't actually do anything, yet here is Obama doing his best to pull out all the stops to blame Republicans.

Obama might as well have said:

"Yeah, I know they can't do a filibuster, but they WANTED TO! You know how much of an obstruction that is???"

Pathetic.

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Surely a Democratic senator can also vote in the filibuster (is it just me or is that name utterly ridiculous ... sounds like a rodeo show).
So 40 Republicans and 5 Democrats can vote for it to pass (for example) unless it has to voted along strictly party lines.

Am I correct?

They can, yes. But if you read Hugh Hewitt's article, the last one linked, you clearly see this:

There wasn't a single filibuster in 2009. Not one.

Which means no Democrat assisted Republicans across party lines to filibuster anything in the Senate.

Well Obama does not affect me directly however, and this is just an idea, he is JUST the President!! He doesn't control anything of major importance - i believe he had good intentions in the beginning but unfortunately he is just a puppet with a voice now and probably realized when he went into office and the men in black visited him and said "OK Pinocchio now - THIS is how it will work; firstly.... yada yada yada"

Just a thought

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by sos37

 

I, for one, am glad to have a president who makes the news when he misspeaks. With the last guy, it was just a given.

I'm glad to have a president who thinks his constituents are stupid enough where he can say anything and they don't know any better.

What you call a "misspeak" on Obama's part I call an outright lie in order to gain sympathy. So yes, that's newsworthy in my opinion.

wrong, you only need one asshole to filibusters. stop the nonsence.

Originally posted by shearder
Well Obama does not affect me directly however, and this is just an idea, he is JUST the President!! He doesn't control anything of major importance - i believe he had good intentions in the beginning but unfortunately he is just a puppet with a voice now and probably realized when he went into office and the men in black visited him and said "OK Pinocchio now - THIS is how it will work; firstly.... yada yada yada"

Just a thought

You're absolutely right. The President isn't the end-all-be-all position of power in the U.S. Congress ultimately has the power to pass legislation despite a presidential veto if they have the votes.

However, in this case you have a Democratic president with a Congressional Democratic majority that can get almost anything passed that they want. The fact is, they haven't done SQUAT with their time and now they're trying to pass the blame onto the Republicans because they TRIED to get filibusters going.

For example: What Obama did with Health Care reform was just stupid. Instead of tackling the overall problem by starting with with numerous smaller items like Medicare/Medicaid and working his way up, he chose to try and fix it all at once. The result was a 2,000 page bill with more earmarks and pork than a pig farm. Health care does need to be reformed, but with something that large you need to do it a piece at a time!

Originally posted by carlos115
wrong, you only need one asshole to filibusters. stop the nonsence.

Carlos, the 41-vote rule to filibuster was adopted in 1975, at the same time they reduced the number needed to invoke cloture.

uspolitics.about.com...

Obama is a liar. Its what hes paid to do. He's a PR guy.

He lies and lies then lies some more. I could go back and count atleast 20 lies from his SOTU address.

He is a liar plain and simple. He isn't ignorant, because look at the job he has. He has one of the best jobs around.

Gah, well maybe civil unrest will occur in March.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Quickfix]

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Quickfix]

reply to post by Quickfix


Ya , Obama lies , Bush Lied, Clinton Lied, Reagan Lied, Bush Sr Lied

this is something new ?

reply to post by Sean48


Nope not really anything new. Except what people may not know, which is hes paid to lie.

Its pretty easy to see. I haven't been around as long as some of you, so I woke up only a 3 years ago.



[edit on 4-2-2010 by Quickfix]

Well the Independent is Bernie Sanders....who is a STRONG Liberal. Probably the most liberal Senator in Congress.

That makes 59.

Who is 60? Ted Kennedy's old seat which is being replaced by Scott Brown (someday).

The point he is making is that he has to have a full vote from Democrats...all 60...or it WILL be fillibustered....which is making it extremely difficult to pass legislation as many Democrats are from Conservative Red states and are less apt to vote for his legislation.

When Republicans vote no on everything...even to some of the ideas they have proposed themselves...then it makes it extremely difficult.

Wait till 2011. The GOP is going to win seats.

Then the country will really slide into hell. Think it was tough to get stuff done before?

Just wait.

The future is grim and it's not going to matter who runs Washington anymore. We're in insane amounts of trouble...and it's certainly not all of Obama's doing either. It won't matter what he does he's going to be criticized by the GOP unless it has to do with upping the stakes of the war...which by the way is exploding our deficit as well.

I don't know why blue dog democrats don't stick with their party...most of the ones in the middle are going to lose all support anyway. Lefties are mad at them...and righties are mad at them...that equals no support.

Oh...and yes...Obama lies all the time. But so does most everyone else in Washington.

The situation sucks and not much we can do about it. We'll go down with the Titanic.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by David9176]