Libertarian History/Philosophy

Jann Wenner to Obama: Tell Me, Mon Comandante, How Awesome Are You?

|

HAWT!

Check out the creepy Rolling Stone editor's first three Qs in his latest Obama Q&A:

When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side. When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy?  

How do you feel about the fact that day after day, there's this really destructive attack on whatever you propose? Does that bother you? Has it shocked you?  

What do you think the Republican Party stands for today?  

Afflict those comfortable, Jannypants!

I haven't RTFA yet, but the prez namechecks libertarians here:

There are some strong and sincere libertarians who are in the Tea Party who generally don't believe in government intervention in the market or socially.

Nick Gillespie on Rolling Stone's John Kerry endorsement here, Brian Doherty on the mag's 40th anniversary here, my obit for Hunter S. Thompson here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Cartoon Truth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Even an O-bot couldn’t read those Qs without vomiting profusely. Right?

    1. Who the fuck reads Rolling Stone?

      1. I don’t and I don’t know anyone who does.

      2. Axelrod

        1. The idea that the libertoid assholes who produce this exercise in confirmation bias can be critical of any other journal is laughable.

          1. Did you really just call Rolling stone a journal?

  2. I wonder if it will be later revealed that she’s a plant from the left and has a history of being in gay porn.

    1. I’m sorry, apparently “Jann” is a dude. Which would be history even more repeating itself repeating itself.

      1. He is gay, though.

  3. In other news, sometimes karma is a real bitch. I hope this fucker ends up on a sex offender list living under that bridge down there.

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne…..2463.story

    1. I hope he ends up in jail for the way they prosecuted that doctor’s case down there, but not for this.

      Swimming in a public area with boxer shorts on is now lewd? So, should a woman be arrested every time you can see her nipples or (yuck, shave it) pubic hair through her suit? What if her top slips some and her titty is exposed?

      Nah, this guy is despicable, but this is just grandstanding by the cops.

      1. Yes, it is grandstanding. But I can’t help but laugh at the idea of a grandstanding jackass prosecutor being arrested by grandstanding jackass cops. And I don’t know, is it too much to ask to be able to go to a bar without having to see this fuckwad’s schlong? We do have indecent exposure laws in this country. I don’t see why this guy can’t abide by them. He should get as much slack as he gives other people who break inconvenient laws. In other words, none. Fuck him. Put him on a list and send him out to the street.

        1. He should get as much slack

      2. “should a woman be arrested every time you can see her nipples or (yuck, shave it) pubic hair through her suit?”

        No, she should get free drinks.

        1. If he hates pubic hair so much he can always go for the . . . well, younger ones.

          1. Hey, now! We were keeping it legal. No need to wolk everything up with that sort of racy talk.

            (Or is wolk capitalized, given its derivation from the name of an alleged sheep buggerer?)

      3. Pubic hair is awesome!

    2. Meh. First of all, he’s a Federal prosecutor, so its doubtful he’s put anyone on FL’s offender list. Second, he was at a bar with a pool, so WTF was some lady doing there with her daughter. Third, its never okay to wish someone on the sex offenders list for crimes that don’t involve sex. Swimming in thin shorts is neither lewd nor lavicious.

      That said, I am angry that he and the State’s Attorney probably meet together every week anyhow and this charge will be dropped because of his privileged standing as friend-of-the-law.

      1. I am a little more hard nosed than that. There are lots of people on those lists who don’t belong on them. And they are there thanks to grandstanding assholes like this guy. And there are lots of federal sex crimes that get people put on those lists. This guy helped to create the system that causes that. I am totally not bothered by him being caught up in it. Sucks to be him.

        1. They used to call this a “threadjack,” I believe.

  4. Uh-oh, looks like Wenner is engaging in treason. Expect an IRS visit, Jann.

  5. “Mr. President, of all the things the Republicans did to you, which hurt more, the crown of thorns or the nails in the hands and feet?”

    1. Do you sometimes feel Mr. President that Americans are ungrateful for you dying for their sins?

      1. Ha ha! Because he’s The Anointed One!

        1. That’s right!

          I’m so quotable!

          1. And it’s funny every time, Sean!
            Every single time.

        2. We try to keep the jokes simple around here so you slow kids can still follow along. We are nice like that.

          1. Thanks, John! But I for one got the joke even before the election. Not that it isn’t still hilarious and relevant. Keep up the good work.

            1. Well that is special of you. We are real proud of you. I think it is really good of Reason to let you people comment on here instead of moderating their comments. It is kind of like when one of those high school football teams lays down and lets the retarded kid on the other team score a touchdown in the fourth quarter. It really warms my heart.

              1. Thanks, John! I am so glad that my commentary affected one of your organs in a pleasurable way. And I am sorry about misconstruing the intent of your Obama=Savior clich?s. I thought you were addressing the Smart People here–not the Retards–with your hackneyed anti-Obama talking points. My bad! Please forgive me?

                1. I’m not the asshole-humming reporter who might as well have asked to see the poor martyr president’s GOP inflicted stigmata.

                2. I was addressing the smart people. But you are the one that responded. So what was I supposed to do?

  6. All the probing, deep questions one would expect of a North Korean News Agency interview of Kim Jong Il.

    1. The whole American people strike the anti-American Republican-controlled “Tea Party” regime of the southern part of America with the entire body of their force!

      1. Gotta be a spoof post, eh, Ray? Or are you seriously giving a full pass to the OTHER evil party, the one currently in charge?

        1. Yes my minion, good. As long as people think they’re as bad as us, we win!

          1. Hey, Kim Jong-Il was re-elected as General Secretary! Who would have guessed?

        2. The liberal trolls are out in force today. They are like flies or locusts. Some days the plague is worse than others.

        3. You obviously have never read KCNA before…they actually talk like that.

  7. There is nothing an American could aspire to which would be nobler than sucking Hopey McChange’s balls.

    1. I would do anything for the presidency.

  8. Hey, Wenner- you’ve got some Presidential dignity on your chin. Better wipe it off.

    Actually, there’s a lot of it; it’s running down your neck, too.

  9. I’m much more interested in Eminem’s Monster Comeback. I didn’t even know he went away.

    1. And I’m sure “The Truth About the Tea Party” is as unbiased as the interview with Chocolate Jesus.

    2. What a pathetic cover. Warmed over leftist propaganda (The real truth about the big scary Tea Party), Eminem and Neil Young. Could Rolling Stone be any less relevant?

      1. That’s why we’re talking about it.

      2. It’s hard to tell. The first seventy pages are all advertisements. Then the table of contents with ads on it. Then some stuff. Then more ads.

        1. It’s like a paper version of an NFL game.

      3. there’s very little that’s more pathetic than superannuated boomers who still think they’re cool.

      4. Rolling Stone jumps the shark…

      5. Er… well, Eminem is the bestselling artist of the year, and he just had the summer’s biggest single.

    3. “I’m much more interested in Eminem’s Monster Comeback. I didn’t even know he went away.”

      You admit to even knowing he existed, then?

      1. Of course. I’m not cool enough and way too honest to say I’ve never heard of him, although at first I thought he was a delicious chocolate candy that melts in your mouth, not in your hand.

        1. You’re talking about Obama now, right?

      2. that song from 8-mile, uh “lose yourself” is one of the best pump-up songs ever written. eminem should be respected for being the most commercially successful, race impaired rapper ever.

        1. ..He should be respected for stealing his entire form and style from Cage? Interesting…

          1. Bah – he’s got so many different styles you can’t honestly say that. Just look at any of his ‘beefs’ on YouTube – say what you want but the guy is original and he’s amazing.

  10. There are some strong and sincere libertarians who are in the Tea Party who generally don’t believe in government intervention in the market or socially.

    However, as we speak, they are being rounded up for re-education. [laughter]

  11. Dr. Hook needs to do a rewrite.

  12. Didn’t the Ascended One also tell those ungrateful whiners of the “professional left” they’d better get off their asses and do as he tells them, somewhere in that interview?

    1. I think that was one of his servants. I think either Axelrod or Rahm did that little piece of dirty work.

  13. From the AP account:

    Obama expresses plenty of disappointment over how Republicans made a tactical decision from the start to oppose him, but also offers some “grudging admiration” for its political effectiveness in keeping the GOP united. He said the resulting slog between Republicans and himself ? legislative delays and political fighting reminiscent of the Washington he ran against ? has worsened public skepticism of government and eroded the feeling of hope that surrounded his election.

    The president said he keeps a checklist of his campaign promises and that he has met, by his account, about 70 percent of them.

    As for the rest: “Well, that’s what the next two years is for, or maybe the next six.”

    1. The president said he keeps a checklist of his campaign promises and that he has met, by his account, about 70 percent of them.

      1. C’mon, Reason, this has FOIA request tattooed on its ass.

        Let’s see that checklist! Or, just as good, let’s see the administration stonewall it!

      2. Well, according to this,

        Promise kept 122
        Compromise 39
        Promise broken 22
        Stalled 82
        In the works 238
        Not yet rated 3

        That works out to less than 70% by my eyes.

        1. I’m guessing you went to Brown, not Harvard.

          *snicker*

          no racist

          1. What’s the color of horse shit? Brown, Brown Brown…

        2. In all fairness, though, politicians’ promises are not all create equal.

          “As I have said before… during my administration… I will be sure… that all American flags… will have 13 stripes.”

          would be different from

          “Let me be perfectly clear… By September… 2010… we will have… raised the Gross… Domestic Product… of the… [stares hard at Teleprompter] United States… by at least… 25%… from what it is now… after 8 years… of failed… policies…”

          1. If I ever get into politics I plan on critiquing what my speechwriters put on the Telepreempter in real time.

  14. For some reason I received 6 free issues of this rag which I gladly used for toilet paper. Between bowing down to progressives and refusing to admit Rush made some good music at some point (and still puts on killer shows), I’ll relish the day Rolling Stone shutters its doors. That is, unless this rag gets a bailout I’m sure its staff of “reporters” and “music” “reviewers” are clamoring for. I’m sure they see Rolling Stone as an American staple, and everyone(people who don’t read RS) should be taxed in order to sustain its feces flecked pages.

  15. Well, 35 comments and it’s apparent nobody actually bothered to read the interview, including the article writer here. Typical.

    1. YOU are typical!

    2. Well then why don’t you read the article and tell us how we are wrong and it really is a hard hitting interview.

      1. Wrong! You’re supposed to retort: “Concern Troll is concerned.” Report to Episiarch immediately.

        1. Concern troll is concerned.

      2. I thought it was a good interview and Obama made a bunch of excellent points. Obviously it was a friendly interview, for the most part, although he was asked about things Afghanistan.

        1. He’s sooooo dreamy.

    3. You are sitting there taking pleasure in the aroma of your own fart. Typical.

    4. The first three questions make it quite clear that Wenner has Obama’s ballprints on his chin. Why waste any more time on it?

      Unless maybe he asks Obama about his failure to restore our Constitutional liberties? Yeah, that’s gonna happen…

      1. Because usually the answers are more important than the questions?

        1. Is there anyone more handsome in a pair of well pressed slacks?

          1. RS might think Al Gore filled them out better in 2000.

        2. No, they aren’t. You can’t get good answers without asking good questions. Sycophantic nonsense like that doesn’t elicit useful information.

        3. “Because usually the answers are more important than the questions…”

          …this reporter was just seeing to it that this interview offered no exceptions to that rule.

      2. Interesting question raised by the use of bold on “failure” by EES – does the leftist googlebomb of “miserable failure” backfire and now link to Obama’s White House page – a quick check shows that no, Google manually excised the google bomb in 2007.

  16. Huh. He must have snubbed an interview request from Tiger Beat.

    1. I LOL’d a little….

    2. What is most pathetic is Geotpf and other liberal commentators here seem to believe Rolling Stone to be more worthy of serious consideration than Tiger Beat. Grew out of TB when I was ten, grew out of RS when I was fifteen. You have to put the childish things aside, especially the politics of Rolling Stone.

  17. I think the Tea Party is an amalgam, a mixed bag of a lot of different strains in American politics that have been there for a long time. There are some strong and sincere libertarians who are in the Tea Party who generally don’t believe in government intervention in the market or socially. There are some social conservatives in the Tea Party who are rejecting me the same way they rejected Bill Clinton, the same way they would reject any Democratic president as being too liberal or too progressive. There are strains in the Tea Party that are troubled by what they saw as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working-class people have been abused or hurt by special interests and Washington, but their anger is misdirected.

    And then there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the president. So I think it’s hard to characterize the Tea Party as a whole, and I think it’s still defining itself.

    Oddly enough, Obama actually does a better job of defining the Tea Party movement than 99% of folks in the media.

    1. Yes. I have to say that was a pretty even-handed assessment.

      1. I agree. Like I said, if anybody actually bothered to read the interview, they would find it elightening. Attacking an interview without reading it (like the other 100 comments or so here, as well as the original article writer) is completely retarded and merely a form of mental masterbation.

        1. Yes. I also had masterbation on my mind after reading it.

        2. The gripe, in this case, is not with the president. The beef is with his sweetheart reporters.

        3. Agreed. I’m no Obama fan, but I think at least some of the ideas that seem dumb by themselves will pay off in the long run. Like “Cash for Clunkers” – horribly inefficient if you simply look at the cars, but could be quite efficient if you look at how it affects people’s minds. In other words, if you consider that program as Advertising, then surely it is worth the cost of three B2 bombers to get the American people serious about making the switch away from oil.

          Likewise, spending billions on research for electric cars that will eventually be built anyway may seem to be a waste of taxpayer money, but if you look at it as a defense issue, electric cars might well save us the cost of another trillion-dollar war for oil. That’s got to be worth something, and may be the most cost-effective defense spending ever.

          There’s a lot of things I don’t like about Obama, and even more things I don’t like about the people around him – but I also think he is more sensible than we often give him credit for.

      2. … then he starts calling them Darkies.

    2. The next Tea party question gets a little kochtopussy:

      There’s no doubt that the infrastructure and the financing of the Tea Party come from some very traditional, very powerful, special-interest lobbies. I don’t think this is a secret. Dick Armey and FreedomWorks, which was one of the first organizational mechanisms to bring Tea Party folks together, are financed by very conservative industries and forces that are opposed to enforcement of environmental laws, that are opposed to an energy policy that would be different than the fossil-fuel-based approach we’ve been taking, that don’t believe in regulations that protect workers from safety violations in the workplace, that want to make sure that we are not regulating the financial industries in ways that we have.

      There’s no doubt that there is genuine anger, frustration and anxiety in the public at large about the worst financial crisis we’ve experienced since the Great Depression. Part of what we have to keep in mind here is this recession is worse than the Ronald Reagan recession of the Eighties, the 1990-91 recession, and the 2001 recession combined. The depths of it have been profound. This body politic took a big hit in the gut, and that always roils up our politics, and can make people angry. But because of the ability of a lot of very well-funded groups to point that anger ? I think misdirect that anger ? it is translating into a relevant political force in this election.

      And i really hate those concern trolls who beleive that someone out there is writing checks just so we can force miners back to work without the hard hats.

      Ain’t nothing old rich man Abdul likes more than a brain-injured miner. Damn safety laws!

      1. But isn’t that what libertarians actually believe? They don’t want a government agency such as OSHA setting safety rules in the workplace.

        1. I suppose that depends on how far their ideology goes. OSHA isn’t really that controversial a topic in most libertarian circles, in my experience.
          It’s a bit of a straw man argument, kind of like saying that libertarians are against police departments, when, as a whole, they’re not.
          As somebody who worked in construction for years, I will say that I’m not against OSHA, per se, but that it could be a bit draconian at times.
          The hats for miners thing is brought up because it ultimately it evokes sympathy, but OSHA likes to micromanage a lot, too, causing unnecessary expense for a lot of small employers.
          As an example, here’s a link to the requirements for extension cords:

          http://www.northwire.com/resOSHAExt.php

          While rules like this aren’t bad individually, in the aggregate they can create major headaches for companies large and small, having to keep up with thousands of such regulations.
          When you’ve got a department whose existence relies on making rules, you can bet they’re going to make rules, and lots of them.

          1. I work in construction in the field, and while I can appreciate some of the things OSHA has done, John is right. In fact, I’ve been on jobs where the so-called safety precautions we were required to take were so absurd that they put our lives in significant danger. Workers routinely ignore safety rules for that reason, or because the “protections” for insignificant risks make doing the actual work virtually impossible.

      2. But isn’t that what libertarians actually believe? They don’t want a government agency such as OSHA setting safety rules in the workplace.

        1. Do you honestly believe that OSHA does anything that couldn’t be accomplished at the state level?

          1. Libertarians would still be against such, even if it was a purely state agency.

            1. not all libertarians, or even Libertarians would be against that. and then they could move to ‘nother state.

          2. Part of what we have to keep in mind here is this recession is worse than the Ronald Reagan recession of the Eighties

            I missed that part first time.

            I guess it’s fair to say that the Obama Recession is worse than the Reagan Recession.

          3. Or even, you know, within a company voluntarily without any sort of government agency.

      3. The concern trolling the media does about miner safety has always seemed very weird to me. Every time an incident occurs they play up that angle but leave out the most important detail. Given the nature of the job, miners themselves are the only ones who can provide safety measures. Do they really believe that some well paid pencil pusher in Washington is providing an extra cushion of safety with his marks on reports? It boggles the mind the amount of magical thinking that goes on inside a liberal’s head.

        1. Geotpf|9.28.10 @ 1:29PM|#

          But isn’t that what libertarians actually believe? They don’t want a government agency such as OSHA setting safety rules in the workplace.

          Thank you for coming along and making my point.

        2. It is in a mining company’s best interest to skimp on safety measures if those safety measures cost more than the lost productivity from an accident.

          1. Another ‘businessman in training’ getting his edumacation from Hollywood. Everyone knows you get the crazy money once you start killing off your employees!

          2. Yes, if you don’t take into consideration the free will of the workers to choose to work for that company or not depending on the working conditions.

            However once you factor in the lost productivity from a smaller pool of potential workers, and from the lost productivity after an accident, and for any claims of damages after said accident, safety measures are a very valuable investment.

            1. That’s just crazy talk. You’re trying to mix up my mind with logic, aren’t you?

            2. All this presumes that every businessperson will make these rational calculations and act reasonably and sensibly.

              I’m all in favor of freedom to engage in and conduct your business, but history does show otherwise.

              There actually are good reasons for most OSHA regulations and fire codes, etc. Think Triangle Shirtwaist fire, or various Texas City explosions. Lots of examples of people having greatly reduced life expectancies or greatly increased rates of serious injuries in certain jobs. Because there is, after all, a breed of businessman who is motivated solely by getting the product out the door and would not bother to spend too much money on safety measures for the workers.

              Has the mentality changed these days from what it was in the 19th and most of the 20th century, such that OSHA has outlived whatever usefulness is might once have had? I dunno.

              I do know, however, that a lot of OSHA standards are very outdated. OSHA was created in 1970, and to meet statutory deadlines, OSHA adopted a lot of industry standards that were at the time voluntary. But it has not updated a lot of them since that time, even though the industries themselves have done so in many cases.

              1. No, this presumes that the people working for said business man are not mindless drones and can choose to work elsewhere if they feel the working conditions are not up to their standard.

                “Lots of examples of people having greatly reduced life expectancies or greatly increased rates of serious injuries in certain jobs.”

                These people know the dangers of the job before taking it. They agreed to do a job for a certain wage, knowing full well the conditions. If they are unhappy with the agreement, they can quit.

      4. The next Tea party question gets a little kochtopussy:

        What’s wrong with getting a little pussy?

        1. it already has Koch in it

    3. “Their anger is misdirected.”

      WTF is that supposed to mean? Bullshit. With all due respect – and I do mean that this is all the respect I feel you are due: fuck you, Mr. President.

      1. That is just the false conscience that capitalist have put in your head getting in the way of you being able to see the truth BSR. But less you worry, I will fight for all of you that one day you too will see the truth of the Light Giver.

  18. That’s funny. I caught a few minutes of that education interview with him yesterday, and it was the same kind of crap. Man, if we could ban the GOP, what godlike actions would Obama be able to take?

    It’s stuff like this that shows that large swaths of the media are in the corner for the left. Not all of them and not all the time (gotta make money, after all), but too often.

    1. I still remember Wolf Blitzer talking about how badly Obama needed his vacation, and how it wasn’t really a vacation anyway, and why don’t we all leave him alone, cause he works really really hard and it’s tough and stuff to be the president so why don’t we leave him alone?

      Fucking pathetic.

      1. And just think, the country is just starting to turn on Obama. He could be a lot more unpopular than he is. What if he gets unlucky and something really bad like the Iran hostage crisis happens? What then? Will they continue to kiss his ass and go down with him or will they turn on him like wolves. You would think the latter. But I kind of wonder.

        1. Don’t look now but Jimmy Carter is dying. Looks like the swamp rabbit got the last laugh.

          1. Dying? Article at your link says, “Doing Fine.” Hell will have to save his place a bit longer.

            1. Malaise!

        2. Yes, I have the feeling that baddies all over the world have sized him up and are thinking “wimp” and just waiting for their opportunity.

          1. There’s a lot of criticisms to be made of Obama, but I don’t think “wimp” is one of them.

    2. Did you hear Obama’s answer on why some people aren’t able to access better schools? He said some don’t have the connections. God damn, that explains a lot about Obama’s brain.

      1. The stimulus was about connections too. Where might I get me some of them connections?

  19. it’s apparent nobody actually bothered to read the interview,

    Rolling Stone.

    duh

    1. Well up until about ten years ago they had P.J. O’Rourke, and he was amusing enough reading.

      1. P.J. is great.

  20. A: Salty, yet hopeful.

    Q: Jann, how exactly did Mr. Obama’s balls taste?

  21. I’m trying to think of a President since FDR more effective at “getting his message out”.

    That CNBC thing was priceless.

  22. “I haven’t RTFA yet, but the prez namechecks libertarians”

    Yeah, Obama definitely knows the enemy, and can sound like he speaks our language when it serves his purposes. All of which worries me a bit.

  23. Dear Server Squirrels:

    Why, oh why does every blog entry page have the comments section closed by default? What really doesn’t make sense is that it takes time to download all the comments, THEN closes the entire section.

    1. Also, you have to shift-reload the main page to see new stories (browser and ISP independent).

    2. I want to tack on a rider to that request – enforced threaded commenting.

  24. My imaginary answer to the first question, yet probably more true than what Obama said:

    Wenner – When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side. When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy?

    Obama – About 5 minutes after I told them “I won” and “I’ll trump you on that”.

    1. Here’s the actual answer to the question:

      Well, I’ll tell you that given the state of the economy during my transition, between my election and being sworn in, our working assumption was that everybody was going to want to pull together, because there was a sizable chance that we could have a financial meltdown and the entire country could plunge into a depression. So we had to work very rapidly to try to create a combination of measures that would stop the free-fall and cauterize the job loss.

      The recovery package we shaped was put together on the theory that we shouldn’t exclude any ideas on the basis of ideological predispositions, and so a third of the Recovery Act were tax cuts. Now, they happened to be the most progressive tax cuts in history, very much geared toward middle-class families. There was not only a fairness rationale to that, but also an economic rationale ? those were the folks who were most likely to spend the money and, hence, prop up demand at a time when the economy was really freezing up.

      I still remember going over to the Republican caucus to meet with them and present our ideas, and to solicit ideas from them before we presented the final package. And on the way over, the caucus essentially released a statement that said, “We’re going to all vote ‘No’ as a caucus.” And this was before we’d even had the conversation. At that point, we realized that we weren’t going to get the kind of cooperation we’d anticipated. The strategy the Republicans were going to pursue was one of sitting on the sidelines, trying to gum up the works, based on the assumption that given the scope and size of the recovery, the economy probably wouldn’t be very good, even in 2010, and that they were better off being able to assign the blame to us than work with us to try to solve the problem.

      I think the bolded part is very informative. The Republicans said no before they even knew what they were saying no to.

      1. They said no because every Obama policy was wildly unpopular with the country. Had there been any political downside to saying no, they would have folded.

        Obama came in and demanded things that were totally unpalatable to Republicans and very unpopular with the country. And now you people act like the Republicans were such bad guys for saying no. Has it ever occurred to you that they wouldn’t have said no if Obama had better ideas or wasn’t the least persuasive President in American history?

        If the Republicans were so wrong to say no, why are they about to destroy the Democrats in the mid-terms?

        1. This was very early on in the Obama administration. At the time, Obama had very high approval ratings.

          1. Could that possibly be because none of his policies had come to light, except insofar as they were the same as unpopular Bush administration policies?

          2. His approval ratings were high. But none of his policies were popular. Why have approval ratings gone down so much? Because he tried to enact a bunch of wildly unpopular things. Of course his approval ratings were high at the beginning of his Presidency. Every President’s is. They haven’t done anything yet.

            Basically your argument boils down to “People liked Obama so the Republicans should have rolled over and agreed to things that were stupid and completely unpopular with the country”.

            1. No, my argument (and Obama’s) was the Republicans shouldn’t have disagreed with something that they didn’t yet know what they were disagreeing with.

              1. So are you blaming the GOP because they couldn’t see the future or because they saw it all too well?

              2. Boo hoo. Every President has an oppostion. It’s healthy and necessary. Besides, it’s bad taste to whine now. Because the Republicans weren’t involved Obama and the Dems got EVERYTHING they wanted. But EVERYTHING whiffed. And now they have to figure out how to share the blame. When they got EVERYTHING. It’s a pathetic strategy that only a O-bot could fall for.

              3. Maybe, JUST maybe, the republicans believed that Keynesian economics were not the solution to our problem, and that a stimulus, no matter WHERE the money went, was not going to work, and therefor they were going to vote no no matter what compromises Obama promised as to where the money went.

                Fairly simple. The plan goes against principle, vote no to the plan, don’t allow yourself to be bought off with pork.

              4. Some might make a similar argument about the recent healthcare bill. Except, nobody should have agreed to it without knowing what was in it. Obama has a funny way of blaming people for not going along with him, but not actually ever telling the details about what going along with him will entail. The true mark of an empty-suit windbag.

              5. Sorry I haven’t read any of the comments up to this point. Are you guys talking about reading bills before you sign them into law?

            2. John why are you ceeding to Geotpf when most of the claims he makes about being early in his presidency are complete and utter bullshit?

              Paul Ryan tried to work with Obama and Obama shut him out with claims that republicans had no ideas and he will not listen to “The failed policies of the past.”

              Just because Sudderman refused to cover this objectively does not mean it did not happen.

      2. Ah, I get it – because Obama said that’s what happened, then that’s exactly what happened in reality.

        No spin or anything, of course.

        Thanks for clearing that up.

      3. I love how Obama feigns shock at the opposing party, um, planning to oppose him.

        And let’s not pretend that the Republicans had no idea whatsoever what was going to be on the table. It’s not like Obama was particularly shy about telling everyone what he wanted to do as President the previous two years.

        He also blatantly lies about the tax cuts, knowing most people don’t understand the difference between a change in the tax rates and a payroll tax credit financed with interest-bearing bonds.

        1. Well, he expected them to at least hear him describe what they were saying no to before they said no. He seemed to be willing to compromise to a certain extent. The Republicans didn’t even want to bother to make their case. Heck, the Republicans are now opposing things they proposed in the past-but since it’s now Democrats proposing them, they are against them.

          1. “He seemed to be willing to compromise to a certain extent.”

            Really how? By passing a healthcare law that was opposed by a large majority in every poll via reconciliation even after his party lost a special election in Massachusetts over the issue?

            What was he willing to compromise on? And further, the Republicans have given him a complete pass on the war. If the Republicans just hated Obama, they would have pivoted on the war and terrorism and gone after Obama for the surge in Afghanistan and his continuation of Bush’s anti-terror policies. Instead, they have voted to approve funding for that stuff and not said a word about it. No Republican candidate that I know of is making the WOT an issue. So they do work with Obama where they agree with him.

            But people like you think that winning an election should give you carte blanche to do anything you want no matter how unpopular. Well it doesn’t work that way. The Republicans won elections to. And they are under no obligation to give you what you want. But don’t worry. Soon enough you will be back in the minority. And you will be on here concern trolling about the need to listen to the minority.

          2. Baloney. This is like Obama saying we put tort reform in the HC bill. Or Cap and Trade is a Republican idea. Or EVERY economist says “insert leftist orthodoxy here”. Obama has a problem with the truth.

          3. “He seemed to be willing to compromise to a certain extent.”

            Compromise on what? Obama never says, except for the general “all options are on the table” deflection–which we all know was a straight-up lie, based on what his team actually put together.

            Notice also that he claims everyone knew the economy wasn’t going to be very good for quite some time, yet seemed to have no problem in Jan 2009 arguing that if the stimulus wasn’t passed, economic armageddon would ensue (the same threat Paulson used to get TARP passed, by the way). Either way, to imply that his lack of success here is due to Republican obstructionism is disingenuous at best, and pathetic excuse-mongering at worst.

            Also, the fact that Obama is flat-out lying about “tax cuts” being 1/3 of the stimulus doesn’t bother you in the least?

            All I see is a man-child who is starting to grasp that actually getting things accomplished is a lot harder when someone doesn’t have their thumb on the scale for you.

      4. Now, they happened to be the most progressive tax cuts in history, very much geared toward middle-class families…those were the folks who were most likely to spend the money and, hence, prop up demand….

        Hahahahahahaha.

        1. I wish it was that funny, but it really confirms that he truly believed this depression is liquidity-driven and not debt-driven. He got the most fundamental problem wrong and he’s been crafting policy based on that presumption.

      5. Dude, who gives a fuck what the Republicans did? He had both houses giving him the ability to do whatever he and the Dems wanted. So, how in the fuck is the Republican’s refusal to contribute to a trillion dollar “stimulus” bill suppose to adversely affect his policy? Makes no sense.

        And furthermore, there has been plenty of bipartisanship in Washington – against the administration’s policies. So, actually, this administration has been rather successful at achieving bipartisanship, just against its own policies.

      6. For one thing, a significant portion of the electorate was put out about how the TARP was passed and did not want any typical political establishment go along to get along that characterized.

        “…and so a third of the Recovery Act were tax cuts. Now, they happened to be the most progressive tax cuts in history, very much geared toward middle-class families. There was not only a fairness* rationale to that, but also an economic rationale ? those were the folks who were most likely to spend the money and, hence, prop up demand at a time when the economy was really freezing up.”

        Except the way the economy actually works does not support this belief. And how many of those so-called “tax cuts” were cuts in rates, and how many were tax credits with social engineering strings attached?

        * Obama and the Left have the most bizarre definition of “fair”. “Fair”, has always had as a basic tenet, treating everyone alike under the rules. It never meant singling out one group for better treatment and the rest for abuse.

  25. It has been particularly tough for President Obama considering that Republicans
    are
    the
    MINORITY.
    Obama is working with his own party with the biggest house and senate majorities since the late 1970’s. No President since then has had same party majorities this big!

    1. The Republicans have been using the filibuster to great effect, which hadn’t happened to this extent in the past. Obama talks about this in the article, if you bothered to read the interview.

      1. I see you popped another little bubble out of your smug liberal butthole.

        He has managed to get more of his agenda passed than any president since Johnson in ’64 if you bother to study history.

      2. The Dems had a filibuster-proof majority from March 2009 to January 2010.

        1. If you count Lieberman and Ben Nelson as Democrats.

          Obama did get his health care bill passed during the time frame you indicated (well, the first vote, but then Kennedy died, complicating matters somewhat).

          1. Why not? They count Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe as Republicans.

      3. I don’t know who needs a hug more: you or Obama.

  26. I, for one, would very much like to know why the President has not had John Boehner clapped in irons and locked in a dungeon, along with the rest of his traitorous mob.

    1. Boner should be locked in a dungeon. Just not for that reason.

  27. Yeah, I don’t understand the headline to the article- “Obama Fights Back”.

    Against what? He has a supermajority in the house and senate, when his party does what he tells them to he gets whatever he wants (see:Obamacare). What exactly is so hard for him that he needs to “fight back”?

    Are those Blue Dog democrats not bowing down to their chosen leader properly?

    This guy whines worse than a kindergartner who didn’t get his nap. Two years on and he still bitches about not getting everything he wants.

    Blame your majority you spoiled and pampered Chicago thug.

    1. Our local Blue Dog is campaigning on two platforms:

      1. His GOP opponent is an evil Hispanic attorney who has represented illegal immigrants seeking legal residency.

      2. He has voted against Obama’s agenda, e.g. Health Care.

      Hmmmm… Sounds like obstructionist Republicans are Obama’s problem, doesn’t it… Couldn’t have anything to do with all the Democrats whose constituents have made it clear they’ll throw them out of office if they go along with BO, now could it?

      1. …not to mention that it’s clearly the GOP that is trying to use racism to “divide us” here…

    2. Look, shit is going downhill in this country, and Obama is doing everything he can to keep Snowball from fucking things up even worse.

    3. Only when Team Blue has 100% of the seats in Congress will we see true hope and change.

      Simple majorities aren’t enough! Supermajorities aren’t enough! As long as Team Red has one ass in one seat, they can obstruct what is clearly best for everyone.

      1. Jim DeMint seems to agree with you.

        1. Elaborate.

  28. You reactionary losers are just jealous of Mr. Wenner because I won’t be sending YOU a big check this month.

    1. Oh, yeah? well, suck my Koch.

      1. Nice. I see what you did there.

  29. Hey, Rahm, you know when you told me to do that interview with Rolling Stone magazine because it will help energize the youth and hipster vote, and I went along with it? It just dawned on me, we might be out of touch. You’re fired by the way.

  30. enforced threaded commenting

    Humbug!

  31. The answer to the second question starts thusly:

    I don’t think it’s a shock. I had served in the United States Senate; I had seen how the filibuster had become a routine tool to slow things down, as opposed to what it used to be, which was a selective tool ? although often a very destructive one, because it was typically targeted at civil rights and the aspirations of African-Americans who were trying to be freed up from Jim Crow.

    Obama remembers when a party (he forgets which one) tried to filibuster – the very same filibuster Republicans are using today – the attempts to end Jim Crow laws. Obama can’t understand how anyone would use such a tool so haphazardly.

    1. At least 90% of Rolling Stones’ readership honestly think that it was Republicans who filibustered the Civil Rights Act. The man just knows his audience.

      1. I would think a majority of the country believes that.

      2. I thought it was Jimmy Stewart that filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

        1. No. he filibustered the Kansas Nebraska Act. It was Elizabeth Taylor and Eddie Fischer who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

  32. Hven’t read all the threads. Did anyone mention that Wenner is a flamer who wants BHO’s cock? If not, I’d like to mention that.

    1. No no no, you have it all wrong. Obama is not a sheep; it’s those who follow him that Wenner craves.

  33. Another thread jack. Yesterday the UN appoints a lady to meet the space invaders. Today, Fox has Air Force veterans telling the national press club that ufos are messing with our missiles. I don’t like the feel of this.

    1. Neither do the extraterrestrial spies and invaders, which is a Good Thing.

    2. keep scrolling down, it’s covered.

    3. I’ve been watching old X-files seasons on Netflix, so I liked the tie-in. I also like Dana Scully’s surprisingly nice tits which are always hidden under some bulky ass jacket.

    4. I’m sure the aliens are looking out for our best interest. Presumably if they wanted to eradicate us they could have already done so. Unless they want to keep us as a food source…

  34. Mr. Burns Obama: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

    1. This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That’s democracy for you.

      1. I hope and pray that Obama has his “Blinky” moment before November of 2012.

  35. I RTFA. Obama comes off as a giant, mindless party hack. First, he eats upmthr premise that everyone is just attacking him personally, because no one can actually disagree with him. Then he says that the people’s anger towards him is just misdirected by his opposition (damn bitter voters don’t know what’s good for them). Next, he explains how nothing is his fault. He’s facing unprecedented economic woes, unprecedented opposition, and unprecedented foreign problems. Of course, he’s still on the path to saving the world. Finally he wraps up with a call to all dems and progs to stop whinig and go vote for whatever the dems are offering, because it’s better than the evil republicans. Did I miss anything, Geotpf, or are you too busy tapping to a picture of Obama to answer.

    1. “Obama comes off as a giant, mindless party hack.”

      Well, at least it’s good to know he is finally representing himself with some semblance of honesty, even if unintended.

  36. These libturds don’t get “it” yet. November is just the beginning of the end of socialist-Marxist schemes in our government and economy.

  37. “Jann”…that’s the name of a catcher.

    (“Manabu” is the name of a pitcher….Jann! Call me!)

    1. Manabu, I pitch, I catch, I squeeze bunt, I’ll do Texas leaguers. You name it.

  38. I have one question here:

    Would it kill the man to wear an interesting tie? Seriously, when was the last time you saw him wearing a tie that didn’t make you instantly sleepy?

    And tie a real knot in it, not some beginner’s schoolboy E-Z knot.

    Jeez.

    1. What is that, a half Windsor? At least it’s not a four-in-hand.

      1. So what would be an acceptable knot? Just curious…

        1. Glad you asked, because I was wondering the same thing. It’s like there are more than 6 or so knots to begin with.

          And I’m adamantly opposed to any Windsor know on an American president. What kind of message would that send?

          1. Personally, I’m a big fan of the Carradine. My understanding is that once you tie the Carradine, you’ll never tie another knot again.

            1. I see what you did there.

        2. Well, it depends on the tie and the shirt. Lightweight materials call for more wraps. Spread collars call for a wider knot.

          I’m pretty sure that’s a four-in-hand. Whatever, its too small and shapeless for a grown man to wear.

          1. If it’s a four-in-hand, it’s remarkably symmetrical.

            Full disclosure: I have to look up knots on the internet and spend 30 minutes tying my tie on the rare occasions that I wear one.

    2. All you would do then is complain that he spent all day on fancy tie knots instead of working.

      1. No, that would be the goal.

      2. If it took him all day I’d damn well complain.

      3. All you would do then is complain that he spent all day on fancy tie knots instead of working.

        I would vote for any president that did precisely that, thus issuing pocket vetoes of everything Congress did.

    3. R C Dean|9.28.10 @ 2:08PM|#
      “Would it kill the man to wear an interesting tie?”

      I see that you have given this some thought. And I have the solution. A bow tie! The chat-o-sphere would implode.

  39. There’s a shittier magazine than Rolling Stone somewhere, but not one that more eagerly enjoys its own stink.

  40. Jann Wenner’s credibility as a rock journalist flew out the window when he gave Mick Jagger’s 2010 solo album “Goddess in the Doorway” a five-star review. Keith Richards later dubbed the album Dogshit in the Doorway, and having listened to it, Keith’s assessment is totally on the mark.

    This interview is just further evidence that Wenner is a cheap lay.

  41. There’s a shittier magazine than Rolling Stone somewhere, but not one that more eagerly enjoys its own stink.

    As the publisher of Yeah This Right Here: The New-Magazine-Smell Fetish Magazine, I take exception.

  42. Obama’s response to the Tea Party question: And then there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker

    Racist!

  43. Note to Jann:
    Get up off your knees and wipe your chin.

  44. I RTFA, and it demonstrates Obama’s belief that government, properly applied, is the solution to all problems. His repeated discussion of “hard problems” at his desk that he has to solve, and his talk about balancing “two rights” when picking what is best for everyone in the country is reflective of a command-and-control mentality that should be anathema in this age of decentralization and self-actualization. Very disheartening.

    Hopefully immigration reform is in the “30%” he’ll attempt before 2012. Obama is pretty much Bush II in the wars on Terror and Drugs, and is worse than Bush on surveillance and expansion of government, so I ain’t holding out for any progress in those areas.

    I was also amused by the part where Obama steps out and then (presumably scolded by Rahm) comes running back in to give Rolling Stone their concluding call to action.

  45. Wonder if Jann found any polyps during the interview.

  46. I remember when Rock N Roll was all about freedom from The Man.

    But it was all a cleverly designed scheme to get bitter clingers to support SCHIP. Because nothing says freedom than free stuff from rich folks.

    Thanks, Chuck Berry!

  47. “Obama Fights Back”

    Oooooo!!!! The Iranian mullahs must be terrified!

    What an Fing joke.

  48. Having scored a coup with the Rolling Stone interview, Obama’s really going to push hard for the youth vote by staging a Three Dog Night concert on the Mall.

  49. Maybe Rollover Stoned can dig up some more Hendrix lyrics to insert into his teleprompter.

  50. A better cover title for the interview would’ve been “Obama Strikes Back”, to more properly allude to the empire which he represents.

  51. Wenner has always been an intolerant pig and his magazine has always been an ad-driven rag.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.