A Night of Pizza, Beer and Pool for Obama in Denver

President Obama drew a large crowd in Denver when he and Governor Hickenlooper stopped by the Wynkoop Brewery for some beer and pool tonight.

Obama clearly had a good time, he even whistled along with "Brown-Eyed Girl" as it played on the stereo system. Earlier he had pizza with some letterwriters from Denver. [More...]

Obama is on one of his "bear prowls", connecting with citizens as a means of getting out of Washington (and the White house.)

It was a case of "the bear is loose," the president's own description of the times when he is able to break free of the trappings of Washington and experience what everyday Americans see.

Too bad he won't stop at a pot shop for a meet and greet. Maybe someone would even slip a joint in his shirt pocket instead of a business card. Now that would be news.

Update: At least the subject came up. Take a look.. Watch a guy in the crowd yell to Obama, "Hey, You want a hit, man?" Obama laughs loudly -- guess he turned down the toke. Maybe next year.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Recreational Pot Sales Begin In Washington State >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Walked with my dog to a neighborhood park today (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 08:41:02 PM EST
    Cheeseman Park in Denver ... trees, lots of grass, good mountain view, lots of people of all ages today, and doggies everywhere.  What a sweet, relaxing, beautiful setting in which to walk ... what a lovely morning for me, doggy Celeste, and a few friends to saunter over and wave at the President as he spoke of the headline gains in employment gained under his Administration after the disaster of the war torn, costly Bush years.  A great day in Cheeseman Park.

    Hey--it must be driving the nay & no-sayers nuts as we continue to progress.  As President Obama said (with only a hint of a smile): If only the Republicans in Congress would do "something," they would join him in doing "something."  Here, we liked especially the down-home approach of the President.  And--relaxation and style aside--we liked here the work of Senator Mark Udall, who remained in DC (skipping events in Denver) to introduce today, together with Senator Patty Murray and 35 other Democratic co-sponsors, legislation to correct and resolve the Hobby Lobby travesty rendered by the Supreme Court last week.

    A great day in Denver.  My only question:  How many Republican Senators will vote to support a legislative fix for the nix to birth control, corporate-loving case now known as Hobby Lobby?  Good on Colorado's Senator Udall for his efforts in support of women's reproductive rights!

    Say what??? (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:37:14 PM EST
    ...gains in employment gained under his Administration after the disaster of the war torn, costly Bush years.

    The labor force participation rate is at the rate it was during the Carter years.

    And BTW - Hobby Lobby provides 16 contraception drugs....


    Interesting metric (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    Measuring employment by the labor participation rate.  Wonder why you would want to use that, rather than the standard everyone else uses - the unemployment rate.

    Someone might get the idea that you're trying (and failing) to mislead ...


    Hobby Lobby doesn't provide anything (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:02:00 PM EST
    They use money that's part of the employees' overall compensation package (in other words, money that belongs to the employees because they earned it) to purchase an insurance plan that covers those 16 contraception methods, but excludes others.

    The insurance company would probably rather cover any and all contraception methods if it increases the chances of not having to pay the much greater cost associated with an employee's pregnancy.


    Wow, you discovered a rather (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:19:25 PM EST
    arcane statistic.

    How about the number of new jobs?  

    You really had to search for a statistic that you think looks bad.    

    There are demographic issues about the labor participation rate.   Are you sure that rate has nothing to do with aging Boomers?


    Don't confuse the poor man ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 10:29:56 PM EST
    ... with actual facts:

    By 2012, the participation rate had fallen another 1.0 percentage point, to 63.7 percent. Of note is the fact that the drop in the labor force participation rate was just 0.6 percentage point during the 2007-2009 economic downturn whereas, between 2009 and 2012, since the end of the recession, the rate declined by another 1.7 percentage points. A major factor responsible for this downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate is the aging of the baby-boom generation. (See figure 1.)

    Glad he enjoyed himself (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 08:18:47 AM EST
    Everyone needs some decompression time.

    Now if he would just go to the border and have a private meeting with Perry so they could talk without fear of angering their bases....

    Not sure I agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 08:40:36 AM EST
    Being prez is not about enjoying yourself.  Maybe more to the point it should not be about fund raising, something Obama seems to be better suited for than dealing with real problems.  It is not like there are not a lot of issues that need to be addressed.  But Obama seems fine with putting things on the back burner if it looks like it will be bad PR for him.

    From (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    what I understand Perry does not want to meet with him. So move onto the next talking point.

    Not true on both counts (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:40:39 AM EST
    Perry didn't want a "quick handshake", but wanted a more "substantive meeting".

    Obama was originally scheduled to be in Texas for fundraising and attend a meeting about the border crisis, where he invited Perry.

    Basically, this is a case of gamesmanship - "I won't go to that thing you invited me to, but I'll look like a bigger person if I invite you to something else."


    That (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:12:49 AM EST
    article doesn't say whether Perry was requesting that Obama come to him or whether he was willing to juggle his schedule to meet somewhere with Obama. Obama offered first and then Perry turned him down trying to weasel but like Anne said below what would a meeting with Perry accomplish anyway? Perry would probably like most Republicans want 100% of his demands met and if they weren't met come out screaming that the president isn't going to "do anything".

    It appears (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    that Perry asked for a meeing first, and then Obama asked to meet Perry in Dallas.

    WASHINGTON -- Under pressure Tuesday to offer a robust response to the border crisis, President Barack Obama agreed to meet with Gov. Rick Perry -- one of his most outspoken critics -- when he's in Dallas on Wednesday.

    The last-minute addition to the president's schedule was fraught with political implications.

    It came on the day he asked Congress for $3.7 billion to cope with the flood of young migrants pouring across the border illegally, many from Central America.

    And it may have been an effort to blunt criticism from Perry and other leaders in both parties over Obama's avoidance of the border or any facility related to the crisis during a two-day Texas trip that is dominated by campaign fundraisers.

    Perry proposed the meeting on Monday in a letter in which he pointedly refused to show up at the airport in Austin for any mere photo opportunity. Early Tuesday, the White House announced that Obama had invited Perry to meet him in Dallas to discuss the crisis.

    Not that I think it will be productive and is just a photo-op.


    Oh quit playing games. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    Obama wanted a ring kiss and instead was beat at his own game.

    And really, what would it even accomplish (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:55:11 AM EST
    were the two to meet?  A photo op of Perry refusing the shake the president's hand?  That such a thing would even be on the list of "things that are really important to do" is just more evidence of how completely whacked these Republicans are.

    And let's also remember that, as governor of the State of Texas - henceforth to be known as The Cuckoo's Nest - Rick Perry is the de facto head of the Texas GOP, and that makes him the guy who's blessed its absolutely insane platform.  Obama's not going to be talking Rick Perry into seeing things his way - I'm not even sure Perry understands words of more than one syllable.

    We all know, don't we, that no matter what Obama and the Dems propose on the matter of immigration, the Republicans will reject it out of hand - even if what's proposed are ideas they have come up with themselves.

    So, really, what's the point of even pretending these people are legitimately interested in sane, rational governance; they clearly are not.


    Yup, one can only imagine a (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    "working session" involving Rick Perry. All the smart guy eyeglasses in the world can't drill some smarts into that skull.

    Oh my goodness... (2.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    Here we have a call for a meeting that might promote fabled bipartisanship and all you Obama lovers can do is snark.

    Tells me where your heads are.


    Cue cards (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    Little index cards.....would help Perry.

    Or he could just write on his hand.


    Of course they aren't (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:32:32 AM EST
    But a photo op of Obama attending big fundraisers in the state and not addressing the immigration crisis wouldn't be good either, so both sides are trying to cover saying they want to meet.

    It's all BS.


    You know I'm not normally a (4.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:07:41 AM EST
    big - or even small - defender of the president, but the business of governing the country does not happen in photo ops, even if that's what the media and the Republican party want us to believe.  Obama doesn't have to be on the border to actually be working on or dealing with the immigration crisis, anymore than he has to be in Iraq to deal with the problems there, or at the Treasury department or the Fed to deal with economic issues, and so on.

    I agree the optics are bad - but there's a reason we call them that: they really don't mean much, nor are they representative of what's going on outside the reach of cameras and microphones.  And we both know that it wouldn't matter what the photos and video showed - the GOP would find a way to spin it as a negative.  If he appears to be actually doing something, he's pandering or grandstanding.  If he's off shaking hands and collecting checks, he's ignoring his presidential responsibilities.

    I have no idea why anyone would want the job, especially not now, when the opposition party has lost its collective mind.


    They Mentioned on the TV... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:57:37 PM EST
    ...that Obama going to the border would create more security issues and they are already strung thin.

    Who knows, but I do find the fact that just a picture of any GOP candidate (beyond prez) shaking Obama's hand is political suicide in the GOP.  

    Jim, remind me, I keep forgetting why we are to take the GOP seriously.  Seriously.

    The really funny thing is Perry was a member of the Democratic Party when Reagan was in office.


    Anne (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:25:38 PM EST
    You know I'm not normally a (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:07:41 AM CST
    big - or even small - defender of the president, but the business of governing the country does not happen in photo ops,

    Come now. Tell me you didn't criticize Bush for not going to New Orleans.



    So, it really is about payback (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:30:18 PM EST
    No substance.

    Just as Republicans have been trying to even the score over Watergate for generations.

    The issue is Bush got criticized over Katrina, so Obama should be criticized over not going to the Border.  

    Do you really care if Obama goes to the Border or is just about payback?  What would he accomplish at the Border?


    No, it is hypocrisy (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:40:40 PM EST
    I am sure Anne was one of the many who criticized Bush.

    Now it is Obama's turn and she, and you, can't stand it.

    Do I care if he goes?? Nope. He won't do the right thing even if he is baptized in the Rio Grande.


    so, you agree it does not matter (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 06:54:46 PM EST
    it does not matter?

    let's just stop there for a moment.  

    You do not care if he goes....

    It is just about evening the score...

    I have long believed that conservatives do not really care about many policy issues. It is just about game-playing and evening the score.  


    My point to Anne and Ga and perhaps you (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:15:34 PM EST
    and Yman, et al...

    You screamed and screamed because Bush didn't go. And yes, it was pointed out that if he did it would a distraction.

    I'm not sure that's the case with Obama hopping in Marine 1 and flying down the Rio Grande and then  doing a photo op. He wouldn't be interrupting the rescue efforts, etc., etc.

    But no matter. All he has to do is send the National Guard to the border and he'll get the $3.7 big bucks he wants.

    He doesn't care for the "children." He's just playing games.

    And yes. I didn't care if Bush didn't go. I don't care if Obama doesn't go.

    Just remember that "Every thing that goes over the Devil's back comes around and under his belly."


    Obama already (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:58:02 PM EST
    in effect offered the national guard for the 3.7.

    Let's just make a mental note:  You agree the Republicans should do that deal.   But they won't take it--because they can never, ever do a deal with this President.


    No, he has not and no one believes him. (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 11:18:27 PM EST
    What we need is some pictures of The Won drinking beer and playing pool superimposed over kids locked away in crowded cells.

    Or Perry and Hannity ... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 06:42:19 AM EST
    ... doing Rambo poses with machine guns at the border.  I know those tend to get you guys all hot-and-bothered.  Oh, wait ...

    ... they actually did that ...


    It wasn't about Bush not going (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:58:49 PM EST
    He did go.

    It was about being a clueless idiot.


    And you complain that people don't show Obama (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 11:16:52 PM EST



    Easy enough to find it .. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    ... if she did.  Should take a few seconds on Google.

    Guess your "question" is just another weak accusation with no basis in fact ... as usual.

    BTW - Bush did go to New Orleans.  You didn't see the pics of him flying over in AF1 while his boy "Brownie" was doing a "heck'uva job"?

    Heh, heh ...


    So in Your Mind Jim... (none / 0) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    ...Katrina and the border are equally disastrous events ?

    I would expect any president to go to any happening in which a lot of Americans are suffering and dieing, especially if their appointee is failing to a degree that should have been criminal.

    I do not expect them to go to any area just because one political party wants him to; where his/her presence would only stretch an already thin security force just because republican's want to label people crossing the border a 'crisis'.

    Then it would be "Obama's security detail only enable more illegals to cross the border..." or some other right wing hackery in which all possible outcomes = "Obama is doing a bad job".

    I actually criticized Bush for going because if you remember they took up a lot of vital resources to ensure he could take a pretty picture while the city burned.  If they are going to go, don't use the resources other people actually need, be a guest and not a photo opportunist.  

    I was not alone in that criticism at TL, but doesn't matter in that Katrina and the border have absolutely nothing in common beyond you believing the Prez should make an appearance.


    Where the Bush administration failed the (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    people of New Orleans and the Gulf was not in not getting Bush in front of TV cameras in New Orleans fast enough, it was in not taking advantage of the knowledge that a major storm was going to hit the area, and not marshaling the vast resources and organizational tools of the government to minimize the loss of life and property.

    If someone wanted to make a Katrina comparison, they could say that with respect to immigration, the failure to address reform has brought us to the point where thousands of children are stuck in limbo.  Neglect, whether it is benign, passive or deliberate, always has its consequences, and we are seeing the result of that neglect now.

    But in no way does the reality of what people suffered during Katrina compare to what is happening at the border.


    A much better picture (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:03:08 AM EST
    of the event in Denver can be found here

    That's one way to beat... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:15:40 AM EST
    the facial recognition software while shaking the president's hand...classic!

    Not knowing the musical stylings (none / 0) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    of the Wynkoop Brewery, was it Van Morrison or Jimmy Buffett?

    Bad sign that Obama is being bashed (none / 0) (#13)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    by MSNBC.  Andrea Mitchel is blabbing that Obama should go to the border and has some dem congressman from Texas agreeing with her.  Mitchel goes on to say it is bad optics for Obama to be drinking beer and playing pool instead of getting his hands dirty on the border.

    Because, of course, he doesn't have (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:35:52 AM EST
    legions of people working on things behind the scenes, right?

    The only "bad sign" I see is that apparently people are willing to let the Andrea Mitchells of the world convince them that the only way immigration problems/issues get addressed is on-site, at the border.

    I'm beginning to think that a person can catch stupid disease just by going to Texas; someone tell the immigrants - maybe that would keep them out.


    However, (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:41:50 AM EST
    Wasn't this the same argument liberals made when GWB was strumming a guitar after Hurricane Katrina?  As you say, he had "legions of people working behind the scenes," so why is this any different?

    You're absolutely right - photo ops don't do the actual work that needs to be done (and to be fair, Rick Perry said he didn't want the photo op of a handshake either, and the liberal media has been screaming, "Perry won't shake Obama's hand!")


    GWB went to New Orleans (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:48:56 AM EST
    and did his photo op. That was just as big a disaster as his flyover photo op.

    This border crisis is not a national disaster (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:03:32 PM EST
    Not sure it is even a crisis. We have the resources to house the children until their status is processed - I'm sorry it has to be in detention facility type conditions and that the processing is going to take some time, but that is not a crisis in my book.  I'm not saying it is not bad, but it is not a city flooded and people drowning in their houses or hospitals.

    You are correct (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    It's not a disaster but it is a crisis.  

    We do not have the facilities or the system to handle this many children from non contiguous countries.

    They are being kept in facilities designed for 1/10th the amount of people that they are now holding.

    Obama doesn't need to go there for a photo op but he needs to do something.   He could introduce legislation tomorrow that would be signed to send these kids back.

    The money he is asking for does nothing to solve the problem.   It only moves the kids around in circles which will just lead to more streaming over the boarder.

    We need to send them back for no other reason then to discourage more from coming.

    Like many issues he doesn't know what to do.  Instead of dealing with the actual problem we are talking about "Optics", "politics" and meaningless things that have nothing to do with the problem.

    I thought he had a phone and a pen?   He could solve this issue tomorrow if he wanted to or knew how.

    Problem is he's a terrible executive and we are again seeing the results.  

    He's more comfortable raising money and playing pool with governors then doing his job.


    The problem is that most of the (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    people screaming for him to do something really only have one solution in mind - and it's the one you suggested: send them back.  

    Meanwhile, please consider that this crisis of which you speak did not just spring full-blown like Athena from the head of Zeus.  In fact, it may very well have been avoided were it not for the absolute intransigence of the Republican Party, which has refused, time and again, to participate in any solutions that might accord one iota of credit to anyone with a (D) after his or her name.

    I'm sick of it.  I'm sick of people who bleat about the sanctity of life and the importance of children and family proving over and over that those are just words, devoid of meaning.  

    I am not an Obama fan, but I am goddam sick and tired of him getting the blame for not being able to overcome the refusal of Republicans to participate in government.  They can't keep saying "no" and continuing to blame him and blame Democrats for why things aren't getting done, but that seems to be the only play in their book these days.  

    The video from Murrietta made me sick, and ashamed of these people who call themselves Americans while spitting on children.  Children.  I'm sure these are the same people who spit on women trying to get reproductive health care, and shame women buying food with food stamps.  They're probably the same people who want to ram evangelical Christianity down everyone's throats and send us all back to the Dark Ages with their insistence on ignoring science and medicine in favor of Bible verses.

    Could we send those people somewhere?  I'd happily put some of them on buses to Guatemala and Mexico and take innocent children in exchange.  Maybe Obama can suggest that "offset."


    Here here (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:01:09 PM EST
    Could we send those people somewhere?  I'd happily put some of them on buses to Guatemala and Mexico and take innocent children in exchange.  Maybe Obama can suggest that "offset."

    Deport the Right, not Children (none / 0) (#45)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:22:07 AM EST
    makes a good 2014 bumper sticker.

    Anne: Thank you (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:42:04 PM EST
    for your powerful, on-point statement here.  

    I have a feeling that the way he would solve it (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    if he had all the power in the world would not be to your liking. It probably would be very compassionate and might involve a tax increase to make the USA a haven for refugees.

    So you should be glad he does not really act like a dictator, contrary to what John Boehner believes.

    He is working within the current law, which he cannot change on his own.

    This does not rise to the level of 'crisis' that needs his attention 24/7.


    I disagree (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    We can't tell the world that if you have kids that are in a bad way we'll take them.

    Just means more will come.

    How many of the worlds kids can we take?   10thousand?  100 thousand? 1 million?  10 million?

    I think even the president understands this but he doesn't know what to do so he's buying time.

    He is the president.  He needs to lead.   Come up with a plan.

    If he has the time to fund raise and make speeches he has the time to lead on this issue.


    Slado, we can take (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    every single kid from Guatemala who braves death to come here.  Every. single. one.

    And push comes to shove, I would take in most if not all of the people of Guatemala, and there are about 12 million of them, minus the honchos running the death squads and the Cheney acolytes, etc.

    Read up on what we did to Guatemala. One of the best things that Bill did was to actually apologize to Guatemala for what was done to their country.


    And Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    helping that poor nun. I understand she is now a citizen and her case caused Bill and Hillary to release all the information regarding the Americans that had gone down there and raped and tortured Guatemalans. Just an awful thing. This is what is wrong with American Exceptionalism. We think we can do bad stuff and because we're a good country it's okay.

    Yes, indeed (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    I believe Hillary was the driving force behind Bill's actions.

    In early 1996, when there was no political advantage to be gained, Hillary took Sr. Dianna off the street during her vigil and was photographed with her in the White House.  Later that year Bill apologized, the State Department released records showing the U.S. was behind the 1954 CIA overthrow of Arbenz, and at the end of the year, the Guatemalan Army came to the table  and the Peace Accords were signed.

    Hillary deserves a lot of credit for that.


    "buying time"? The law has time built (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    right into it, requiring adjudication of these cases. The only solution that takes relatively little time is your preferred one of catch and release back to native country, which happens to be against the law in these cases, even if he thought it was the right thing to do. I love that you guys are all for him acting like a dictator to do the wrong thing.

    And commit child abuse (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    No child should be without support and protection.

    What should Pres. Obama do in light of this (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:53:19 PM EST
    federal statute?



    Oh Really???? (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    He is working within the current law, which he cannot change on his own.

    Uh, have you been paying attention to Obamacare?

    And what has happened to his phone and pen?



    Some things are within ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:55:46 PM EST
    ... the discretion of his authority as POTUS.  Others are not.

    Not really a difficult concept.


    Obamacare (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 10:22:27 AM EST
    was passed by congress, a very different congress than the one we have in place today.  He did not do that on his own.

    Not a crisis if people (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    stop acting hatefully.

    We can house these kids if the bigots are ignored.

    As it was once said, No problemo.


    And then the courts... (none / 0) (#43)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    "He could introduce legislation tomorrow that would be signed to send these kids back."

    ...could hear arguments for several months about whether the bill Bush signed just before leaving office that prohibits sending these kids back out immediately or the new bill is the one that controls.


    Do you believe it is the same? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    People were dead and suffering through a natural disaster.

    What people are dead and suffering here?  Those seeking asylum, residents of the border towns?

    Fact is, there is no equivalence.  This is hugely different.  Those that seek to make it the same insult those who suffered during Katrina.


    No, I'm not (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    Only those who wish to be insulted will be insulted. And those who chime in on liberal blogs.

    While it looked stupid for him to be playing a guitar at a fundraiser, the fact remains - what exactly would he have done in that area? (As Anne points out - like Obama, he had legions of people to work on it). GWB wasn't about to go into the area - any time a president goes somewhere like that, it diverts resources and security away from those who actually need it (a fact cited by the WH yesterday as to why Obama is not going to where the refugees are).

    As I said, for those who can read, neither Obama nor Perry look good here as they are both playing "one upsmanship" on who is most concerned.  If it was such a pressing matter, Perry would meet Obama anywhere, anytime, no matter if there was a tarmac handshake or not.  And if it was such a pressing matter, Obama would not be busy playing pool and going to fundraisers.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just foolish.


    jbindc: Your words (none / 0) (#47)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    appear to be attempting a classic "false equivalency."  

    Yes, the border situation--in general and in particular--has morphed over the years of failure to address the overall immigration reform necessity.  We now see a crisis involving children at the border.  Without arguing now about how the border issue has deepened over the years, I think it is important that the President is moving expeditiously to respond fully to the Texas border issue that has concentrated the country's attention.  The immediate need, as the President points out, will involve a lot of $$$$ ... because, without quick mobilization that only dollar resources can bring, the situation will inevitably deepen.  For that reason, Congressional attention to and approval of the $3.47B specific package President Obama has presented is a must.  Like it or not, the immediate need is for appropriated $$$ so that the matter does not deteriorate into the kind of humane tragedy that we can avoid, if we want to do more than talk.

    If the country--Republicans and Democrats--moves emergency legislation in a speedy manner, we definitely can prevent another potential Bush-Katrina catastrophe.  As the President calmly, directly stated yesterday: This is not theatre.  It is really not about photo ops at the border or anywhere else; it is about mobilizing the $$$ resources that Congress has the legal and moral
    obligation to authorize.


    Not a dime for tribute (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:33:16 PM EST
    Millions for defense.

    Start taking those 747's out of mothball and getting the ready to haul these people back to their home.


    jim: What the heck are you saying? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 06:34:24 PM EST
    GWB (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    sent incompetent people to deal with Katrina. But then most of the people he had were incompetent because they were hired because they were evangelicals not because they were competent. Monica Goodling anyone? Heckuva job Brownie? How childish is that?

    Anyway it's not a catastrophe and people aren't drowning. This is more like a humanitarian crisis.


    The bad sign for Obama (none / 0) (#17)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    was not that he was being bashed, that is happening all the time.

    The bad sign was that it was happening on MSNBC.


    No - typical sign for MSNBC (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    Contrary to common belief, as a network they are followers of who is up and who is down in power.  As Obama's poll ratings fall, you will see them being more critical. If there is a GOP pres next time, they will be back on that bandwagon and Chris Matthews' 'thrills down the leg' will come form that source.

    There is a new (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    NEWSMAX channel on Dish

    WH calls Dem Congressman (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:57:20 PM EST

    Once again this WH is more concerned about optics and politics then doing it's job.

    Cuellar is a long time jerk (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    Bush (literally) kissed him publicly for his support of the Iraq War.

    Many Dems tried to primary him a few years ago.  In fact, I got in a tiff with Armando the night of that Primary because I said (regretfully) that Cuellar was going to win, and Armando thought it too soon to say that.

    This latest blather only makes me madder we could not get rid of him when we had the chance.


    Those Texans aren't very grateful (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    for all that cheap labor that helped make a lot of them rich..

    What's a "Meskin" done for 'em lately? I'll tell you what: given them a socially acceptable target for their racial hostility and fear of outsiders.


    jondee they don't need anymore.. (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:34:26 PM EST
    On the contrary.. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    they should give the whole thing back to Mexico. And to the Commanches

    Right - because all the government stops (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    in its tracks while he makes a phone call. Ridiculous.

    Not my point (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    Point is a Dem has the nerve to say the WH is bungling this issue and instead of working with him to solve the issue they call him to tell him to be quiet.

    President declines legal-in-CO mj.: (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:17:13 PM EST