DescentBB

In the first meeting after Obama was elected in 2008 he interrupted them to say "I won." and told them he would veto anything they try that went against his plans. Of course he hasn't had to veto much since Harry Reid has trash can full of proposed legislation that enters the Senate but never makes it to a vote...

But yea, of course, you are right slick Heh, you know as well as I do Obama has schooled them in hard ball politics from day one.

Will Robinson wrote:In the first meeting after Obama was elected in 2008 he interrupted them to say "I won." and told them he would veto anything they try that went against his plans.

can you provide the link, so we can all see the total wording and context of his remarks. Because, your presentation is a bit off.

Of course he hasn't had to veto much since Harry Reid has trash can full of proposed legislation that enters the Senate but never makes it to a vote...

oh please, more stuff has died in the Senate due to archaic filibuster rules than by being held up by Reid or failing to get out of committee. You ought to know that, likely do and choose to ignore it. Why don't you list the number of Dem sponsored bills that don't see the floor of the House? Most recently, the original Sandy relief bill that was co-sponsored by Dems and Republicans from the house would be a good start.

But yea, of course, you are right slick Heh, you know as well as I do Obama has schooled them in hard ball politics from day one.

hardly a reflection of reality. This term, however, you might well get to see what hardball politics looks like. Notably, use of what T. Roosevelt called the
'bully pulpit'

"The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship. "

"But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.” "

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/2 ... gop-i-won/

oh, and Will, to save you the work....from that known liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal's archived account of the event in question:
Edit--Mr.Cherry-pick above conveniently left this part out, so I bolded the key phrase for y'all.
Democratic and Republican aides confirmed the exchange. A White House spokesman said he wasn’t immediately aware of the exchange. The aides who heard the remarks stressed that it wasn’t as boldly partisan as it might sound. "
also, absolutely ZERO mention of a veto, or suggestion thereof. In fact, the word veto was not brought up by Obama very much at all in the first term,
and the first mention was when the House was threatening a bill to retract half of the stimulus funding.

Heh and we're supposed to believe what either the spokesmen or the aides say as clarification?

if the alternative choice is to cherry-pick the article and then sort of make up your own context, that would probably be preferable, yes.

Perhaps you missed the link I posted so one could read the whole article. Bad form to get up in the morning and read stuff without your glasses.

woodchip wrote:Perhaps you missed the link I posted so one could read the whole article. Bad form to get up in the morning and read stuff without your glasses.

actually, that link was in my post, but I edited it out for the sake of avoiding redundancy. If you are that concerned with reading entire articles, then, why did you only post the little bit you chose to in quotes? I had already asked for a show of context, which I highlighted with comments by folks who were actually present. In fact, no one present is on record as saying anything other than what those folks did. Further, Will had mentioned veto in the Obama presentation, when no such thing was said.

I posted the nuts and bolts. Like I said, aides trying to explain it is irrelevant to what was said.

woodchip wrote:I posted the nuts and bolts. Like I said, aides trying to explain it is irrelevant to what was said.

why? It seems to me that they were present, and you and Will were not. That makes a world of difference, at least to me and anyone else who gives a rat's behind about accuracy.

You know the aides were present or are you just assuming. Comments are like jokes, if you have to explain them... they fail.

woodchip wrote:You know the aides were present or are you just assuming. Comments are like jokes, if you have to explain them... they fail.

didn't the article describe them as 'aides to both Republicans and Democrats, who were present'?

Forget the aides. House majority whip summed it up nicely:

Still, other Democrats echoed the sentiment. As he left the White House, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina was asked about Republican complaints that Democrats aren’t listening to what their GOP colleagues have to say. “We’re responding to the American people,” he said. “The American people didn’t listen to them too well during the election.”

So back to "We won and screw you"