You can tell Obama doesn't spend much time with Senate Republicans.
He doesn't know the name of the Minority Leader in the Senate.
Video.
Transcript, from the White House
OBAMA: They couldn’t be here today but they played a huge role in making this happen -- Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate; Senator Mike [sic] McConnell, the ranking Republican who helped facilitate the smooth passage of this bill; Senator Chambliss, who was the lead Republican; Republicans Hoyer, Clyburn and McCarthy all played important roles, and so we’re very grateful to them. Give them a big round of applause. (Applause.)
Obama is reading and he gets McConnell's name wrong.
The brilliant Obama didn't correct himself. Clearly, he's on auto-pilot.
Bill Clinton wouldn't have done that.
10 comments:
Why should he bother to remember the names of "hostage takers, traitors and the like"?
The microscope is massive - mispronounce a few words - mistakenly call someone by the wrong name and people jump all over the guy. G'me a break...I doubt any of us could appreciate the shear volume of issues and significant matters the President has to deal with 24/7. Such criticism of trivial matters is really quite small, Mary.
Because it's Obama, they're trivial matters.
When it was President Bush, mispronouncing words wasn't trivial.
What about Sarah Palin? She's mocked mercilessly about "refudiate."
Trivial?
Obama can't say "corpsman." He can't say "emancipation." He thinks there are 57 states.
Why give him a pass?
The worst is that Obama doesn't know names. He doesn't know the name of the Minority Leader in the Senate. Why didn't he immediately correct himself?
I couldn't say "Barick Obama" or "Bob Obama."
He's had lots of problems with the name of his secretary of defense, too.
You have no credibility if you diss Palin and Bush for their mistakes but cut Obama slack.
The difference is the shear volume of mistakes - with Bush and Palin it is and was a matter of course...virtually every time they open (opened) their mouths something odd (strange, wrong, factually inaccurate, etc.). With President Obama, it is rare, unusual and therefore newsworthy to those who think pointing out his few mistakes helps settle some score (for all of those unfair things citizens said about President Bush). In my book, there is no score to settle - it just makes those rendering the critique to be very small.
What a bunch of disingenuous BEEEE ESSSSS.
With President Obama, it is rare
And just how do you know it is so rare? It is common knowledge now that the media do their best to hide as much of his gaffes as possible. The man stammers to the heavens without a teleprompter and we are to be "assured" his idiocy is "rare"? LOL
Yeah, ok there.
Harvey: either you don't really know what that word means or you're calling me a liar. If your intent is the later you don't know me well enough to make that determination. (dis·in·gen·u·ous/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
Adjective: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does). My comments are sincere, and I'm hardly pretending anything. I do enjoy it however, when your comments essentially prove my point: "it just makes those rendering the critique to be very small".
LMAO.
So, in your mind your misinformation is genuine and true. That explains a lot. In other words, is it possible for you to be lying if you believe what you are saying is true even if it is not?
In the real world your statement would be considered to be disingenous... maybe? But you'll never understand because apparently you believe what you want to believe even if it isn't true.
(Man, that has to be tough.)
I'm done with this.
In a previous post you said you were not even going to read the links I provided - which tells me you're not interested in the truth or an honest discussion. So it's difficult for anyone to take seriously your assertions that information I share is untrue, and illustrates again those rendering the critique to be very small.
...because of your insults... you forgot that part...
Post a Comment