Hey, let me eat my shrimp, or waffle, or something

Hey brother, you’re President. Waffles, shrimp, what’s the difference. Sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the bed.

Reminds me of the line from the movie which I can’t remember right now … Mr Grumpy himself. This via Jake Tapper at ABC news, the young President is asked about the war in Iraq while the family is trying to do its afternoon shopping for shrimp and well … Mr Grumpy shows his ugly head again. The line comes at the very end of the video

Remind you of the waffle scene at all? Via Hot Air.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

78 replies
  1. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    The President is always working 24/7. When he vacations, plays golf or buys shrimp, he never truly vacations, plays golf or buys shrimp.

  2. winnie888
    winnie888 says:

    If it were Bush being "petty & whiny", the press would be all over it.  Again, don't criticize Obama.  Stop it, Jim…Now you're petty & whiny.

     

    • winnie888
      winnie888 says:

      OH! Were you talking about Cavuto/Fox being "petty & whiny"?  I thought Obama was being so…honest mistake… 🙂

    • scottm
      scottm says:

      As I recall, anyone who criticized the chickenhawk Bush and his warmonger policies was immediately attacked from the right and branded as un-american or un-patriotic or didn't love the country.  He would all but threaten other countries, "You're with us or against us" comes to mind.  Any country that did not agree with him was ridiculed.  Petty?  How about re-naming frenchfries freedomfries because the French were against his chickenhawk policies.

      • NH-Jim
        NH-Jim says:

        Hmmm, Scott, 3,000 dead Americans are petty.

        And, "you're with us or against us" is straight forward policy; no gray area; no place to waffle.

        Naming Frenchfries – Freedomfries…kind of similar to you lefties calling us TEA Party folks "Teabaggers"

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        Now we just cast loose our allies without so much as a "how do you do?".

         

        Remember: dissent is the highest form of patriotism!  (saw it next to a Hillary bumper sticker this morning)

      • scottm
        scottm says:

        Yes straight forward take no prisoners kill em all policy.  Lets invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 two years after the attacks.  Who cares if many more Americans and innocent Iraq citizens are killed, lets go in with guns blazing.

  3. scottm
    scottm says:

    Speaking of grumpy, his opponent in the election never lashed out at anyone did he?  And speaking of waffling, his opponent also voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2004 because he said they favored the rich.  He also changed his tune about immigration among other things when challenged from the right.  I liked what Jon Stewart said his campaign platform was,  "Just tell me what to say and I'll say it" 

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      McCain is hardly the diving rod of all things conservative, nor the role model for a politician that sticks by his guns.  How many conservative sites do you see that are pro McCain?  A "maverick" to the media is a sellout to the rest of us.  And he still does it.  Another victim of Congressional Stockholm syndrome.

       

      Since you insist on dragging Bush into this, the wussydove Øbama voted and spoke out strongly against the surge that is now allowing us to leave Iraq with a sense of accomplishment and (gasp!) success.  To have followed his sage advice, we would certainly not be leaving Iraq unless it was to run away.  Ironically, he has approved another surge in Afghanistan!

       

      What is a liberal to do?

      • scottm
        scottm says:

        Yes he voted against the surge, he also had the courage to vote against the Iraq invasion when the political winds were blowing the other way.  We have managed to create another breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq, there is no stability and they are still blowing it up.  I don't consider that success.  I guess using diplomacy makes him a wussydove.  And sending others into combat to try to quantify a cultivated macho image after avoiding Vietnam makes him a chickenhawk.  It's easy to sit in Washington and say "BRING IT ON" when it's someone else at risk.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        So all those other Democrats were idiots?  Okay.  I am sure his methods will make Afghanistan (the "good" war according to Dems) a shining example of diplomacy.  I hope so, because it is looking grim.

         

        "Yeah, but…" arguments are insufficient here.  The surge worked brilliantly, so much so that Øbama is now a pro surge president in Afghanistan.  Isn't that tacit admission that he was wrong?

         

        No, what makes him a wussydove (opposite of chickenhawk) is approaching our allies in a bent over position.  He just can't decide which end to point at them.  It is equally easy to say "bring it home" when our allies are at risk.

      • scottm
        scottm says:

        No war is a good war, invading Afghanistan seemed like a logical response to being attacked on 9/11 based on what they were saying at the time.  Now I'm not so sure they were being honest with the American people about that either.  They kept showing a bunch of guys with black hoods climbing a rope, thinking back on it that was a little bit weak too.  Yes, in retrospect the surge worked and Obama and the others were wrong to vote against it.  But Obama was right to vote against invading Iraq in the first place and fulfilling Bush's little fantasy about being a wartime president and trying to raise his approval rating before the election.  He was John Wayne when sending others into combat but when it was his turn he was Shirley Temple.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        Don't forget that the Democrats, or a significant subset of them, had access to the same intelligence that Bush had, and went along with the war.  Now why would they do that?

         

        I recall that Bush, before he was thrust into the world stage by 9/11, was dead set against nation building and foreign intervention.  Amazing how reality can change your mind.  Like on surges.  You may desperately want to believe your "John Wayne" insinuations, but that won't make it true.

         

        I also recall that Mr. Clinton avoided "his turn".  So if you weren't in combat, you can't be CIC?  How about being a community organizer?

      • chris-os
        chris-os says:

        "allowing us to leave Iraq with a sense of accomplishment and (gasp!) success" says Dims.

        What did we gain except for the loss of about 5000 US troops, 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. a trillion dollars of our money gone and a feeble beginning to a democracy which is unsustainable?

        That's success? You can break out the champagne, but I'll pass on having any.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        But I though our fearless leader determined we have succeeded, hence the withdrawal?  He wouldn't leave the job undone, would he?  Biden once said on Larry King, ""could be one of the great achievements of [the Obama] administration."

         

        Following the withdrawal strategy agreed upon before Øbama took office is tacit admission of its success as defined by said strategy.

         

        Ya gotta admit that, compared to Viet Nam, this was definitely a success.

      • gillie28
        gillie28 says:

        Chris, you said about Iraq "a democracy which is unsustainable," let's talk in 10 years time.  Iraq will never go back to a saddam-era type rule.  It may wind up as a country like Turkey, which mixes Islam and democracy.  But, so what?  The US style of democracy leaves a lot to be desired also. 

        The greatest risk to Iraq's fledgling democracy is the fact that Obama gave a due-date to withdraw, withdrew too soon, and thus there have been more factionalist attacks.  God only knows what the future holds for any country: democracy or not, especially with Iran going nuclear (or nucular!!! 🙂

      • scottm
        scottm says:

        Yes many democrats voted to invade Iraq and they were wrong also.  They voted for it because they figured the political winds were blowing that way, same reason they nominated John Kerry, they figured if they nominated a war veteran they would not be labeled as soft or un-patriotic, big mistake, Howard Dean proved there were a lot of people against invading Iraq that got behind his stance.  Yes Clinton avoided Vietnam but he didn't invade Iraq on a whim.  Yes you can be CIC if you weren't in combat, but it helps to know first hand the horrors of war, it will make you think twice about it.  Colin Powell knew but the chickenhawks Bush, Cheney, Rove etc. managed to silence him.

  4. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    I think a multi-post attack on President Bush addresses Obama's refusal to answer questions from the press while working 24/7 on vacations and campaign stops. That's what's known as staying on message.

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      Right Tim, I'm going to be the dumb blonde and stay on subject! Did anyone notice that the ABC camera man moved the camera down to show that Michele was NOT wearing designer sneakers?

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      Right Tim, I going to be the dumb blond who stays on subject. Did anyone notice that the ABC camera man panned down to show that Michele was NOT wearing designer sneakers?

  5. scottm
    scottm says:

    The subject of Bush being criticized was iniated by Dimsdale and Winnie who both agree with just about everything Vicevich and his other contributors say.  I just happened to escalate it.

    • winnie888
      winnie888 says:

      OOOH GOODY!  I've been lumped in with Dimsdale! It's a good day indeed!

      Yes, I "agree with just about everything that Vicevich and his other contributors say".  I must have never had any independent thoughts of my own before "coming over to the dark side" that is the chatroom and the blog.  Do I ever disagree with Jim, or Mr. Vicevich (which is the polite way to address someone if you're not going to use their first name)?  Sure I do.

      Just not very often, that's all.  Didn't think it was a criminal offense.

       

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        Do I have to tell my wife about this?  😉

         

        I was just stating the obvious, inasmuch as I have been exposed to about 10 years of Bush hatred from the left.

         

        I like to think that Mr. Vicevich agrees with me.

      • scottm
        scottm says:

        I didn't say it was a criminal offense, just responding to the post about staying on subject.  Dimsdale mentioned that I insisted on dragging Bush into it but you and he were the first to bring up the subject of Bush.  I figured as long as you were bringing him up I might as well weigh in on the worst president of the last 80 years.  George Warmonger Bush.

      • winnie888
        winnie888 says:

        Dims, all that's going thru my head right now is the guy who called that recent horse race:  "The Wife Knows Everything!….followed by…."The Wife Doesn't Know!"  rofl  And you are a peach for using your manners, Mr. Dimsdale.  I'm such a nudge when it comes to proper English and common courtesy.

        Wow, I sure am a redneck, aren't I?

        Now, to keep on topic:  I'm going to make me some WAFFles.

      • scottm
        scottm says:

        No I can't abide any rule of not dragging Bush into it, he deserves any criticism he gets.  I'm sorry but I just can't do it.

    • gillie28
      gillie28 says:

      Ok, Scot. Now I'm bummed.   Dims is my blog hero and I wasn't" lumped" with him.  What do I have to do to earn such a humbling honor?  Really, one does try one's best to be dissed by you, but obviously one has not tried hard enough.

      Did someone say "shrimp"?????

      • scottm
        scottm says:

        Sorry Gillie.  Now go over to Dimsdale's house right now so he can give you some literature from the John Birch society and invite you to join his militia to fight for freedom because a democrat is in office, conveniently ignoring the illegal phone tapping during the Bush administration.  

        How was that? 

  6. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    Sheesh, Tim. don't you know nuttin???  Of course it's Bush's fault that the Obamas are milking us for all the vacation time they can get, er, I mean, having some well-deserved "down-time,"  and refusing to answer questions. 

    • chris-os
      chris-os says:

      Awe, Gillie, I didn't complain about the 300 vacation days a year that G.W. Bush took – hey it kept him from doing any more damage than he already was doing during the other 65 he tried to act like he cared to know what was going on in the country.

      • scottm
        scottm says:

        Chris, he was busy clearing brush he wasn't vacationing.  In fact he was so busy he didn't have time to meet with a woman that had a son who died in the war he started. 

  7. Anne-EH
    Anne-EH says:

    Why is President Barak Obama complaining?

    Remember when former President George W. Bush, when he went HOME to Texas to  work on the farm during the month of August, how all the press would camp out very close to the Crawford, TX home of Mr. Bush? Well President Obama, the job of being President is a 24/7 position.

    Also there are people who wish they had jobs to be able to have vacation or those who have jobs who are thankful if they even get a week off!

  8. socialenemy
    socialenemy says:

    I just wanted to weigh in here. While being president maybe a 24/7 job, President Obama, like President's before and after him has the right to a certain amount of vacation time. President Bush as I recall took quite a bit of time off much to the irritation of the left wing media and I don't remember Rush or anyone else on the right verbally destroying him for going to the ranch. Being a president is a hard job, and wanting to spend some time with the family is something any father wants to do when he has time off, turning the man's vacation into some sort of "news" story or using it as a political talking point feels like a waste of time to me.

    I'm all for ripping on the man's political beliefs, but come on guys, let him have his time with his family, I'm sure you'd be grumpy too with a camera rammed up your rear end all the time, right?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Then you might recall the criticism the previous occupant took from the lefties.  And still does.  As I have said before, they name streets after Democrats: ONE WAY.

       

      Now let him eat his lobsta….

  9. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    Goodness. Read the TOU please. The comments section is for posting a comment on a blog post, not for a conversation between folks about a subject. No offense, but it's completely impossible to follow. These types of conversations are best suited for a forum. Maybe it's my fault for having the threaded reply option.

  10. scottm
    scottm says:

    Getting off subject again, last night while flipping through the channels I came across fox news, when I returned from the bathroom I saw it was Hannity.  I have to give him credit, he had a guest who had a dissenting opinion.  I credit Hannity for not being afraid to have a guest who is of higher intelligence, who has a greater sence of morals and integrity.  That guest was Jerry Springer. 

    True story, although I may have embellished the part about having to rush to the bathroom.

  11. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    Please, no more getting off the subject. Maybe we will eventually provide a forum for listeners to post their own topics and have forum-type discussions, but we have no resources to manage such a venture at this time.

  12. Law-AbidingCitizen
    Law-AbidingCitizen says:

    Stop it, all of you! You should be ashamed of yourselves! You sound like tattle-tales in school, "He did this and she did that!" Stop it, NOW!

     

    Oh, how I long for the understated civility of former President Reagen. I believe he would have invited the press corps to try some lunch and would have told them he would answer all of their questions when he was finished. And, he would have been true to his word.

     

    And, NOT to be picky, but you may well have a 'diving rod,' but I hope you were looking for "divining rod" used by dowsers. (See Wikipedia for more content.)

     

    O.K. children, you are free to take potshots at that with the only caveat being that it is CONTENT — REMEMBER THE ORIGINAL POST? — RELATED! And, yes, I am a retired teacher who will have a talk with your legal guardian if you continue if you continue this lunacy. Steve if RIGHT, heed his words and mine.

    NO, SNIPING! Opinion on the content not attacks on each other!

  13. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    scott: descending to ad hominem attacks and using hindquarter derived assumptions is simply admission that you have lost the argument.  Tsk, tsk.   I can understand your frustration though!

  14. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Any time there is a post about the Petulant Party President, his hate-filled supporters spew their Bush Derangement Syndrome lies and hijack the thread. They're the internet equivalent of the 9/11 hijackers.

  15. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    I'm confused. This little interlude is not about policy it is about character. Unscripted, our president comes off as thin-skinned, unprepared and quite frankly, rude. He can't afford to be a white tower elistist at this stage, but he can't reason through his own shortcomings. The lack of press conferences and the utter insincerity of Gibbs creates frustration for the press compounding the vicious circle he finds himself in. So back to character – as the chip on his own shoulder grows, he vacations, golfs, etc, – trying to distance himself from the fray, never giving a firm answer. Its about character, and its lacking.       

  16. David R
    David R says:

    I can't say character is overrated, but seems to me it is easily corrupted by the day to day business of politics. Even the pols who are initially in it to do good seem to give up at least some of their idealism and values on account of all the deals that need to be made, all the butts that need to be kissed and all the slimey types looking for favors. My view of politics is simple: "It's the money stupid". The monied/corporate interests who control so much of what we care about, don't support character. They support what and who can give them what they want. Which brings me to the war in Iraq: It's about money stupid".

  17. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    David- I would argue that our presidents have come to the job with varying degrees of "character" and that rarely changes (or we find out what it truly is). The process you speak of I believe is the degredation of "moral compass" – being forced to play the Washington game – which as you rightly point out is all about the $$.  

  18. David R
    David R says:

    RoBrDona: Unfortunately I think the game starts way before Washington. Years ago I was astonished by a friend who said he wanted to go to law school because "everybody needs an angle". For too many politics is their angle for making  potentially profitable connections while meeting a range of emotional needs for admiriation, power, popularity, specialness, etc. I am convinced you've got to be a little off if you want to run for high office. The price seems too high. Re. all presidents and other political big wigs: sometimes they show character sometimes they don't. For example Mr Mehlman, through the course of his personal jouney has at times, and in some ways shown little. Right now he is a stand up guy. It takes guts to do what's done.

  19. scottm
    scottm says:

    Steve, you posted a story about Obama being grumpy and got 62 comments to this point, more than any other I have seen.  I think you knew you were feeding the appetite of hatred towards Obama from the right.  I think coming out of Harvard law and going to dangerous areas of an inner city to help the most downtrodden of our society says something about character.  This is someone who could have been working at some of the best law firms in the country making millions but worked tirelessly to help his fellow man.  Politics aside, he is a decent and remarkable human being.  I wonder if politics and policy is the only thing that has drawn such hatred.

  20. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    Scott! I always think about that! I read where, as he was editor of the harvard Law Review, he received offers from very prestigious firms. How many would have the character to turn those down for a job paying so little. I also read a quote from one of his Harvard professors that he was a peace maker and refused to get into heated debates about race and politics, tried to always calm the furor that sometimes ensued.

    And sorry Steve, you know i love you AND Dims, but Dims turns every post into something about Obama-it may be on anything-and you have never asked him to stay on topic.

  21. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    scott: I would love to see his LSATs, any publications, his Columbia grades, what he actually did in the inner city "to help the downtrodden", offers to work at some of the best law firms, etc.  Can you link me to any of those?

     

    Your insinuation that it is his race that "draws such hatred" (what liberals call criticism) is completely unfounded, but if it comforts you, then so be it.

     

    Secondly, praising Jerry Springer's intellect, morals and integrity simply on the basis of his praise of Øbama is specious at best.  Silly at worst.  Again, if this affinity you have for him comforts you, so be it.

  22. scottm
    scottm says:

    Dims, the comment about Jerry Springer was a joke, I honestly thought you would be amused.  I don't think Jerry Springer deserves a platform to discuss his views regardless of what they are.

    Are you going to tell me that his race has not generated any hatred towards Obama?  Humanity has not reached that level.

  23. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    You could be right about the racism.  It is a issue no matter what race the president happens to be, because someone will always be playing the race card (any race can do it) to gain some political advantage.  It is shameful.

     

    You also have to consider the more likely scenario: that Øbama was elected because of his race, be it "white guilt" or blacks voting for him because he is black, or someone voting for him because he is half white and half black.  Kind of a reverse racism effect.  Not that any of this is necessarily bad, but hardly a qualification for the presidency.  Given his thin resume and lack of practical experience, you have to think it was something along this line.  And this is said with the realization that McCain was no gem either, but he did have gravitas that the current CIC lacks.

  24. scottm
    scottm says:

    Dims, I don't consider that to be the more likely scenario.  He was voted in because of the crashed economy, because people were tired of war, and his opponent was not a very worthy adversary.  Whoever won the democratic nomination was going to win.  I liked McCain in 2000 and I admire his fortitude during his days as a POW but by 2008 his best days were behind him.

    What does qualify someone for the presidency?  He was a state senator in Illinois for 7 years and a US senator for 4 years in addition to his work as a teacher and community organizer, he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard law.  I don't consider his resume to be thin.  Does being governor of Georgia or Arkansas or Texas or Alaska qualify someone to be president?  If you are associating gravitas with courage I think he has plenty of that.

  25. scottm
    scottm says:

    Steve, to be honest I just watched the video for the first time and I can't understand what the fuss was about, he wasn't the least bit surly.  As far as Reagan inviting the press corps in for lunch?  I can recall what Reagan would often do, he would cup his ear and pretend not to hear them as he was walking away. 

  26. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    You may be right, scott.  But I worry less about the political appointments than I do about what they did in the office.

     

    Even more important is the question of what he took in college and how he did there.  Yes, the Magna Cum Laude is listed as part of his Harvard degree, but what about his courses and grades?  Why has Øbama steadfastly refused to release any details about his college life?

     

    Obama has not released transcripts for his grades from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law. He has also not released his SAT and LSAT scores. No explanation has been offered for not releasing them.

    Per the Wall Street Journal September 11, 2008, "Obama's Lost Years," "Obama graduated from Columbia University (to which he transferred after his first two years at Occidental College in California), with a degree in Political Science without honors, so had a GPA less than a 3.3. His roommate Sohale Siddiqi indicated Obama initially felt alienated, felt "very lost," and used drugs to get high, which could have led to low grades initially. The roommate indicates that he then turned serious and "stopped getting high." Obama transferred to Columbia because he was concerned with urban issues. Based on his overall undergraduate GPA of less than a 3.3, Mr. Obama's admission to Harvard Law School may reflect affirmative action statutes, low grades early, then higher grades later (purely speculation) and/or other factors.

    At Harvard Law School, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, which, according to the Havard Law School website, is awarded to the top 10% of Harvard Law School students.

    Also at Harvard Law School, Obama was accepted as one of 85-90 Editors of the Harvard Law Review, out of an estimated 1,000 students from the 2L and 3L classes that might have sought this honor. Obama was also elected President of the Law Review, which according to a Harvard Law spokesperson is not based at all on academics, but on other measures as would occur in any club."

     

    Just wondering.

  27. scottm
    scottm says:

    Dims, I don't know why his SAT and LSAT scores were not released and it could have been because they were less than stellar.  Did he get help because of affirmitave action?  That's possible.  He has been open about his use of recreational drugs and he obviously buckled down while at Harvard.  Is it unfair that he got help getting into Harvard because of affirmative action?  To some degree, yes.  It's also unfair that other people get into Ivy league schools because of family and or wealth and Obama had no help in that regard. 

  28. David R
    David R says:

    To?be even handed: Obama benefited from affirmative action. Bush did too: from “priviledged white guy” affirmative action. So did McCain, the son and grand son of admirals. Bush got into Harvard Business with a C average. How often does that happen? Ever notice we see 20/20 when looking at the opposition guy’s foibles but need the Hubble when trying to find our guy’s. I suppose if we saw candidates as they are, we’d stay home on election day.

  29. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I have never defended anyone getting into Harvard or Yale or anywhere because of who they are or who they know.? Nor do I believe that someone should get in because they are a particular color or whatever.? The only determinants should be ability to perform and ability to pay, i.e. assistance should be based on income if anything.? I’ve been on the bad end of that sort of crap more than once.
    ?
    You partly make my point though: we know what Bush and Gore (for example) got in college, and it was pretty mediocre (which always galls me when C-/D in science Gore lectures us on AGW), but we do not know what ?bama got.? He is sold as a very intelligent guy, and I can actually believe that, so why the mystery?

  30. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    Dims, why are you sooo worried about Obama's past-his collegiate transcipts?

    Obama's  "thin resume and practical experience" dims?

    How about bush's experience?

    The man drove 3 companies into the ground and was right in the middle of the Savings and Loan scandal also. His father was President at the time and brushed it under the rug. Still people turned a blind eye. The man had a surplus of money when he took office and through scare tactics and deregulation he took this country to the brink of ruin just like he done those companies! Million of people are now unemployed because we let that guy take office.

    But you obsess about lack of experience and college transcipts.

Comments are closed.