The Great Jefferson Hotel Sandbag Gambit

President Obama hosts a dinner of lamb and lobster with 12 "key" Republican senators at the Jefferson Hotel on March 6.  The following day, at the White House,  President Obama and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan have lunch together and dine on lentil vegetable soup and broiled sea bass served with a roasted vegetable ragu.

Evidently Obama is finally engaging House Republicans  to hammer out a compromise fiscal plan? After stonewalling the Republican leadership and refusing to consider their views about what needs to be done to get the US fiscal house in order, Obama has finally seen the light and is putting the interests of the US ahead any fundamental differences about the proper role of government in the lives of US citizens? Obama is finally putting on his "big boy pants?"

So O'Reilly and Brit Hume have it all wrong?

As you may have noticed, I'm getting very frustrated with President Obama. It has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with performance. It's obvious to anyone who pays attention that Mr. Obama is not trying to solve the fiscal mess. He does not want to cut spending and will not put forth any specific plans to do so.

He will also not give his vision on entitlement reform, things like Social Security and Medicare which are draining the treasury. I mean, the president is the leader of the country it's his job to get the debate started with concrete proposals. Mr. Obama simply will not do it to the great detriment of the nation. That's a fact. And here is another fact.

What we have is a re-elected president basically not trying to reach consensus on important issues. Rather, he is hoping that the messy stalemate will tee off voters who will then throw out Republicans and give him full control in 2014. That's very disturbing as Brit Hume said last night on The Factor.

"The President seems prepared to let the public suffer almost as much as possible as long as he can blame somebody else. This is not what we expect of presidents. Presidents in the end are supposed to be the people who put on their big boy pants and are prepared to shoulder responsibility."

Or do O'Reilly and Hume have it right and the  President is cunningly setting up a fake reverse narrative with MSM? Namely the narrative that he tried valiantly to engage the Republicans and work out a compromise. If the Republican leadership continues to prop up the narrative then they have been sandbagged. Obama can then be the one that doesn't give in on government entitlements and increased spending but  Republicans won't be able to reverse the narrative and will be faced with the dilemma of either giving in to the Obama tax and spending hikes or be stuck with the obstructionist label and blamed for any economic hardship that ensues.

 




President Obama hosts a dinner of lamb and lobster with 12 "key" Republican senators at the Jefferson Hotel on March 6.  The following day, at the White House,  President Obama and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan have lunch together and dine on lentil vegetable soup and broiled sea bass served with a roasted vegetable ragu.

Evidently Obama is finally engaging House Republicans  to hammer out a compromise fiscal plan? After stonewalling the Republican leadership and refusing to consider their views about what needs to be done to get the US fiscal house in order, Obama has finally seen the light and is putting the interests of the US ahead any fundamental differences about the proper role of government in the lives of US citizens? Obama is finally putting on his "big boy pants?"

So O'Reilly and Brit Hume have it all wrong?

As you may have noticed, I'm getting very frustrated with President Obama. It has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with performance. It's obvious to anyone who pays attention that Mr. Obama is not trying to solve the fiscal mess. He does not want to cut spending and will not put forth any specific plans to do so.

He will also not give his vision on entitlement reform, things like Social Security and Medicare which are draining the treasury. I mean, the president is the leader of the country it's his job to get the debate started with concrete proposals. Mr. Obama simply will not do it to the great detriment of the nation. That's a fact. And here is another fact.

What we have is a re-elected president basically not trying to reach consensus on important issues. Rather, he is hoping that the messy stalemate will tee off voters who will then throw out Republicans and give him full control in 2014. That's very disturbing as Brit Hume said last night on The Factor.

"The President seems prepared to let the public suffer almost as much as possible as long as he can blame somebody else. This is not what we expect of presidents. Presidents in the end are supposed to be the people who put on their big boy pants and are prepared to shoulder responsibility."

Or do O'Reilly and Hume have it right and the  President is cunningly setting up a fake reverse narrative with MSM? Namely the narrative that he tried valiantly to engage the Republicans and work out a compromise. If the Republican leadership continues to prop up the narrative then they have been sandbagged. Obama can then be the one that doesn't give in on government entitlements and increased spending but  Republicans won't be able to reverse the narrative and will be faced with the dilemma of either giving in to the Obama tax and spending hikes or be stuck with the obstructionist label and blamed for any economic hardship that ensues.

 




RECENT VIDEOS