President Obama told me to stop ‘demeaning’ him, says Rep. Conyers

[kpete]

Source: The Hill


President Obama told me to stop ‘demeaning’ him, says Rep. Conyers
By Molly K. Hooper - 12/08/09 06:00 AM ET

President Barack Obama recently called Rep. John Conyers Jr. to express his frustrations with the Judiciary Committee chairman’s criticism.

In an interview with The Hill, Conyers said his opinions of Obama’s policies on healthcare reform and the war in Afghanistan have not sat well with the president.

According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to find out why Conyers was “demeaning” him.

....................

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “Obama called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71075-conyers-obama-told-me-to-stop-demeaning-him?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=

[No Elephants]

1. Could this be true? The Constitution of the United States gives members of Congress an absolute

privilege for things said on the floor, for very good reasons. Since when does disagreeing with the President's policies equal demeaning the President? Conyers, of all people, and it is not as though Conyers has been attacking Obama personally.

Is The Hill reliable?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

I imagine it has more to do with Conyer's remarks said off the floor

"Nobody's been more disappointed than me"
"He's screwed up on X Y Z"
"He's being advised by clowns"


If someone were saying those things about me, I would probably do the same thing--call them and ask them to talk about it.

[No Elephants]

36. Do you have a link for those quotes? Besides, what is wrong with

Conyers saying he (Conyers) is disappointed, or the the President is getting bad advice or that the President erred as to XYZ? Again, that is criticism of policies, not "demeaning" the President personally. And, freedom to criticize how our government is being run extends to everyone, including members of Congress, on and off the floor. I mentioned the floor only to show that the Constitution is especially protective of members of Congress (for good reasons), giving them an absolute privilege (while First Ameendment freedom of speech is not absolute.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. Saying "I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can" is not disagreeing with policy.

And the quotes are from the article in the OP.

[roguevalley]

107. good for conyers. he's a gentleman. obama needs to FUCKING LISTEN!

TO SOMEONE WHO IS OUT IN THE WORLD HEARING AND SEEING THINGS FALLING APART! Oh wait, he has Rahm to talk to. Too bad. so much potential and so little time. GO, CONYERS!

[Zhade]

119. That's why I call him Orahma now.

NT!

[JDPriestly]

108. "I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can" is pure Conyers.

It's great. Conyers is the father-figure here. Obama needs to listen to him more. Conyers has more experience in his little finger than Obama has had in his whole life.

[Smashcut]

151. Tact is beside the point

When thousands are being put in harms way here and abroad.

Conyers has the right kind of experience Obama should be listening to, even if it comes out harshly. Certainly he could do better than two-bit shills like Rahm.

[NJmaverick]

58. See post 56

[bertman]

43. SemiCharmedQuark, so you're saying that an American lawmaker can only criticize the

President's policies when he's on the floor of the House or Senate?? That's pure and simple rubbish.

ANY American ANYWHERE and ANYTIME has the right and the obligation to criticize the President if he/she feels he is wrong. And to use strong words to do it.

It's President Obama who is acting like a petulant child if he did this. He should have been LISTENING to Rep. Conyers and other liberal Congresscritters and Senators BEFORE he made his Afghanistan decision, rather than calling him and berating him after making a bad decision.

I wonder how many Republican lawmakers the President has called to tell them he doesn't appreciate them demeaning him.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

51. That's actually not what I said at all...

The person I was replying to was talking only about statements made on the floor. He was saying that lawmakers are given free reign to criticize policy ON THE FLOOR. Hence, why I was saying that I doubt Obama was talking about statements made on the floor but rather statements made to get play time in the media.

Secondly, Obama asked Conyers to talk, Conyers said no.

Third, many criticize Obama for working to closely with the Republicans as it is. So which is it? Work with them or dont?

[Jim Lane]

109. I don't see Conyers as refusing to talk with Obama

You write, "Secondly, Obama asked Conyers to talk, Conyers said no." I don't think that's supported by the source.

The linked article says:

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “ called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”


Sitting in the Judiciary Committee’s conference room two days after Obama delivered his speech on Afghanistan, the 23-term lawmaker said he wasn’t in the mood to “chat.”

You apparently conclude that Conyers told Obama he wasn't in the mood to chat. Given the present participle introducing the sentence, I read it as Conyers telling the reporter he wasn't in a mood to chat -- meaning that he wasn't going to go into detail about his conversation with Obama.

If the President of the United States calls someone up and asks to talk about that person's criticism of the President, most people would be very happy to elaborate. Conyers makes these criticisms public because he hopes to get the President's ear.

I see it as a good thing that Obama is reaching out to his critics on the left.

[JDPriestly]

106. If Obama can't figure out why Conyers is saying these things,

he needs to get more progressive advisers. I'm not saying that all his advisers should be progressive, but certainly more of them should be than are now. He is surrounded by DLC types and therefore, he is not getting a complete view of issues.

Thank you Congressman Conyers for your forthright statements. It seems that only these kinds of challenges get any answer.

[notadmblnd]

121. well he is being advised by clowns

[wordpix]

138. his economic team are Clowns #1. Put in Elizabeth Warren, for one, & get rid of

Geithner and Summers

[NJmaverick]

32. Well the headline of the article is a blatant lie

so I would say the Hill is not a good source. Obama never told him to "STOP" he only asked him "WHY". Big difference

[JDPriestly]

130. If Obama included a few progressives among his advisers,

he would not need to ask "Why." Obama makes a big show of listening to diverse voices. But the voices close to him, the ones he talks to most frequently, do not include real Progressives. In fact, they mostly just include people who work in government in D.C. and don't really know what is going on in the world.

[rucky]

2. "Calling in generals and admirals to discuss troop strength..."

...is like me taking my youngest to McDonald’s to ask if he likes french fries”

:rofl:

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. LOL

Amen!

[HughMoran]

3. And he (Obama) said ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’

And thus this is "news"?

[Lex]

No, the demeaning part is. n/t

[HughMoran]

9. It was his opinion

I think the President is allowed to have one - no?

Isn't Conyers the one who's whining instead of working it out - sheesh!

[Lex]

17. No one said he wasn't "allowed" to have an opinion.

People are "allowed" to comment, positively or negatively, on his opinion. Really, they are.

[HughMoran]

89. As did I

I'm not the one making a big deal out of nothing - you and NoElephants are.

[NJmaverick]

27. Only if you create a false headline by changing STOP from WHY

FACTS MATTER

[bc3000]

77. Conyers is all talk, all the time

do something for a change Conyers

[bitchkitty]

142. You're not very old, I take it.

I suggest that you read up on the civil rights movement and Conyers' role in it. You might also ask yourself how John Conyers got reelected 22 times.

[No Elephants]

10. A President telling a member of Congress not to criticize him is, as well as

a President equating critiicism of his policies with being demeaned.

Come on, now. The only excuse for this is that it's not true.

[HughMoran]

13. He can have an opinion with emotional attachment

You think these people talk to each other like they are robots or something?

Conyers is the jerk for publicizing this.

[No Elephants]

21. No one said anything about inability to have opinions, so I hope you did not hurt yourself

building that straw man.

[HughMoran]

86. Nice, you make an argument, then acuse me of arguing

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

91. Another straw man. Never accused you of arguing either. Discussion and debate

are usually the whole point of message boards, so why would I "accuse" you of arguing on a message board? However, you have now twice "answered" arguments no one ever made to begin with. Of course, Obama is allowed to have an opinion, but, since no one said otherwise, that is a straw man. Of course accusing you of making an argument on a message board would be laughbable, but no one did that either, so that is a straw man, too.

[NJmaverick]

37. and the author of the article is a liar for changing "asking why" to "telling him to stop"

[No Elephants]

76. Again, the direct quote from Conyers in the article is:

“Obama called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

According to this quote, Obama did not literally say "stop" as the headline says, but he did not ask "why" either.

[rucky]

Sounds like DU. n/t

[NJmaverick]

34. Yes it sounds exactly like DU, especially the part about making things up

to attack President Obama. Obama asked "WHY" he did not tell him to "STOP"

[NJmaverick]

28. Where exactly did he say that?

is the hatred for Obama so great that FACTS DON'T MATTER?

[No Elephants]

79. Facts matter to me a great deal. That's why I try to stick to them instead of getting hysterical

and whining about hate and bashing and things of that nature.

If you're so interested in facts, here's a few for ya.

FACT is, I don't hate Obama at all. I contributed more than the legal limit to his campaign and rather like him personally. I have been disappointed in a number of his appointments and in a number of his policies. I have been pleased by others. I have posted pro and con. But some folks seem to notice only when I post con--which I have not done on this thread, btw.

[dbmk]

35. But did he tell him not to critisise him?

I don't see that backed up in the story.

[No Elephants]

81. Yes and no. Please see Replies 30 and 39.

That is assuming Obama said what Conyers (or this article) claims, though. I find it hard to believe that Obama said it.

[msongs]

4. so does Obama make this call to all the people who'd rather see him dead? or just to dems? nt

[No Elephants]

7. Huh? Conyers would rather see Obama dead?

[Zynx]

5. Conyers is kind of a jerk for sharing a private conversation.

[No Elephants]

6. If it actually happened, this conversation should be shared. If true, it's outrageous.

[Zynx]

8. Remind me never to have a private conversation with you.

[HughMoran]

12. dig it

[No Elephants]

16. Private conversations are not in the same universe as a President telling a member of Congress

to stop demeaning him, when the issue is his pollicies being criticized. Since the difference seems to escape you, I probanly would never have a conversation with you anyway, so not to worry.

[bertman]

44. Great explanation, No Elephants!!

[No Elephants]

47. ...

:fistbump:

[snagglepuss]

61. Well said

:applause:

[Zynx]

127. I fail to see how that makes sense.

All that divulging this detail did was embarrass the president. It served no purpose of open government.

[Zynx]

126. It doesn't matter what the issues being discussed are. If the president had wanted to

talk to Conyers via public channels, that's one thing. Conyers should not divulge the contents of a conversation unless they agreed that the contents could be made public. It was clearly Conyers' intent to embarrass the president via divulging the details of the conversation. He should have kept his mouth shut. The president should be able to talk to members of Congress without it spilling out into the public.

[flyarm]

148. Conyers does not work for the President, he works for his constituents

he has an obligation to tell his constituents if the President is requesting him not to criticize his polices. Everyone elected to congress works for We the people who send them to congress, not for the President. They have an obligation to stand up for their constituents, even if the President doesn't like it, and to be transparent to their constituents, and to share the requests good and bad of the president to their constituents. To do otherwise is abdicating their responsibility to those who elect them.

[quiet.american]

19. What's outrageous? Obama said, "let's talk." The Hill then reports it as 'stop demeaning me.'

The shoddy, sensationalistic journalism is the outrageous part.

[No Elephants]

26. If conyers did not use the words, you are 100% correct, which is why my first question was "Can this

be true?" and my second question was "Is The Hill reliable?"

[quiet.american]

57. Why the questions at all if you'd actually read the article? nt

[No Elephants]

66. Huh? How does reading the article prove the article is true or that The Hill is reliable.

Are you actually reading my posts or just typing any ole thing whenever you see my name?

[quiet.american]

68. Oh, no, believe me, I'm reading your posts, hence my queries.

Here's your first post I replied to:

If it actually happened, this conversation should be shared. If true, it's outrageous.

A quick read of the article should tell one that the actual conversation was misrepresented in the article's headline, and therefore, there's no need for the "If true" in your subject line.

However, I see you also went on to answer other replies in this thread to make a case for backing up the misrepresentative headline - at least in part.

That's why I had to ask if you'd actually read the article.

[No Elephants]

70. Fine. Then explain how reading an article proves it's true or proves that the source is reliable.

In other words, your "queries" had nothing to do with my post. Hence my questioning whether you were reading my posts.

[quiet.american]

71. Take the difference between the headline & the story and you don't have to ask if its "reliable."

Even if the Hill is "reliable," this story in it is not. What's the big mystery?

[JonLP24]

75. I've seen bad headlines but true stories

Not saying this one is but I can give an example of something minor.

Chess-Drunk grandmaster checkmated after dozing off in India

He wasn't actually 'checkmated' but he lost on 'technical grounds'. JR confirmed that plus there are several links on it and here is one. http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINBOM45370520090904

[quiet.american]

80. Fine, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

This is a misleading headline that further cements The Hill's reputation for sloppiness.

[No Elephants]

84. Not so. First, often the headline is written by a different person than the person who

wrote the article. So, the headline says little to nothing about the truth of the contents of the article.

Second, even the most reliable of publications errs now and again. So, even if the same person had written both the headline and the article, I would not have leapt to any conclusion about whether, as a general matter, The Hill is usually reliable or usually biased.

Third, as I have posted elsewhere on this thread, in the real world, the notion that Obama was calling Conyers because he wanted the demeaning to stop is not a far leap from what Conyers said Obama said since 'I've heard you've been demeaning me" kind of implies "If what I heard was right, I'd like you to cut it out (and I am the POTUS and the head of your party).

Fourth, when I said, "Could this be true?" I was not asking if the headline accurately reflected the article. I was referring to the entire story, including what the story claims are Conyers exact words.

[quiet.american]

90. Protestations aside, you've spent a lot of time in this thread misquoting the story.

By it's very nature, there's not a soul alive who does not want "demeaning" to stop (unless they're a masochist) so, there's no point to be made there.

Obama called Conyers. He'd heard that Conyers was demeaning him (Conyers' words). Obama says, "Well, let's talk about it."

The Hill picks this up and writes this headline:

President Obama told me to stop ‘demeaning’ him, says Rep. Conyers

???????????????????

I call nonsense on that, no matter who wrote the headline.

[No Elephants]

96. Bullshit again. I have quoted directly over and over and I have also said over and over

that the headline is not an exact representaion, but is not a total lie, either. Your own words prove that, to wit.

By it's very nature, there's not a soul alive who does not want "demeaning" to stop (unless they're a masochist)...

Exactly. Since that is clearly so, then the headline, while not totally accurate, is not "a total lie," either, which is what I've been posting all along, again, if you bothered to read what my posts actually say, rather than what you imagine them to say.

You posted a couple of things that were wrong and I refuted them with facts. If you want to call that "protestations," on my part, go ahead.

BTW. I noticed that you just moved the goal post from whether your question about my reading the article made sense or not in light of my posts, to whether you consider the headline nonsense or not. And along the line, you've made a false claim about my having spent a lot of time on this thread misquoting the story. Again, even more false than the headline.

Give my regards to Gepetto.

[quiet.american]

99. What part of your quote "Why are you demeaning me" is accurate?

What's the big deal about accepting that the way the headline presents the story is flat-out wrong and misleading?

The "story" is what's bullshit.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

139. question of curiosity

Lets assume some of your friends tell you that another of your friends have been demeaning you

You call or visit your friend and comment that 'you've heard that he is demeaning you'

would you say thats
1: 'demanding' him to stop demeaning you
2: or asking him 'why' he has been doing it(or asked nicer, have you)

My Stance on the above hypothetical if it happened to me would be number two, I'd be curious if he had actually done it, and if so why

[impik]

112. What's outrageous? That he asked him why he talks about him this way?

And then suggested that they'll talk?

Indeed outrageous.

[NJmaverick]

29. So is the writer who wrote a false headline

there was no quote of Obama Conyers to "STOP". Driven by hatred the Obama Bashers are now sacrificing the TRUTH.

[No Elephants]

40. Somewhat, but please see Reply #39.

[NJmaverick]

55. FACTS MATTER and in this case the aurthor ignored the facts to further his anti Obama agenda

[No Elephants]

69. Facts do matter, which is why you should recognize that your post is not factual.

[druidity33]

123. give me a freaking break...

Why is it do you think Obama called him? Why do you think he wanted to talk to Conyers about it?

Because he wanted him to stop doing it, that's why. Whether Conyers inferred that from the call, or whether The Hill inferred that from what Conyers said is actually irrelevant. Fact is, the impression that both Conyers and the Hill got was that Obama wanted him to stop 'demeaning' him.

That's how i read it.


:shrug:

[Jefferson23]

11. Good I hope they talk too, and that Obama listens.

[Nite Owl]

14. President Obama treats his base

like shit and then he gets annoyed when someone speaks out? I suppose we are supposed to sit silently and agree with things we don't stand for so as not to hurt his feelings.
Thank you John Conyers!

[swilton]

15. If the Shoe Fits

Not holding Bush & cronies accountable, not closing Guantanamo et. al. - deserve the scrutiny.

Obama shouldn't whine - checks and balances are what this country is supposedly all about.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[elmerdem]

50. the shoe

of not holding Bush & cronies accountable may also be in Conyers' size.

[swilton]

103. You're equivocating

Obama has alienated his base in numerous ways

[LynnTheDem]

18. What a difference between Pres. Obama and GWb...

Difference of opinion on policies?

Pres. Obama; ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

GWb; "Fuck you."

[No Elephants]

24. But, first, Obama (supposedly) told a member of Congress who simply disagreed with him on policy,

"Stop demeaning me," meaning stop criticizing my policies. Only after Conyers defended himself, saying it was not personal, did Obama say, "Well, let's talk about it." Meaning, Obama does not plan simply to let it ago at, "I simply disagreed with your policies. It's not personal."

Taking one line from the article out of context puts a different complexion on it, doesn't it?

[rudy23]

20. Hey, Obama---stop demeaning your own base. Your shitty strategy has consequences.

What are we supposed to do, smile and applaud? Sometimes I think our "Democratic" leaders think we are just like Republicans and will swallow every line we're given.

[yurbud]

23. Obama needs to quick talking about it and start listening to people like Conyers who paved the way

for his victory.

[ChiciB1]

116. +1000! I'm On The Side With Conyers... Seems That The Black Caucus

was very front and center when criticizing BFEE too, so at least Conyer's is simply stating what he feels.

I too am upset with policies that Obama has adopted, and the more RW turn he's made. I feel he has been listening to DLC'ers and Blue Dogs MUCH MORE than his base! But that's nothing new these days and I don't expect much to change.

Too bad that Obama doesn't realize that when those of us who worked hard to get him elected can actually feel a bit betrayed. Sure he talked about Afghanistan, but not to THIS extent, and he talked about other issues, which as time has passed have actually not come true or have been changed in a way that I didn't think would be!

Sorry, that Conyer's has to defend himself!

[NJmaverick]

25. FACTS MATTER- Where was the quote that justifies the headline

there is a big difference between asking someone WHY vs telling them to STOP. Another shameless and intellectually dishonest article being used to bash President Obama

[No Elephants]

30. Supposedly, the story is quoting Conyers, which is all it can do, since the WH refused to comment.

"Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “Obama called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

[NJmaverick]

31. Conyers said "WHY" not "STOP" so the author changed the quote

because when it comes to bashing Obama the truth is but a minor and easily overcome obstacle.

[No Elephants]

39. Agreed the headline is not exact, but when someone says to you "Why are you demeaning me,"

the concept that they would like you to stop is pretty much implied.

[JonLP24]

42. Both "why" and "stop" are neither quotes and both written by author

Inside the quotes Conyers neither says "why" or "stop" and it could be implied as why.

Actually all Conyers said is "told me that he heard that I was demeaning him..."

So the actual key quote is "told"

[No Elephants]

46. Not sure what you are getting at, but here is the full quote:

"Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “Obama called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

If I am the President, and I call you to ask why you are demeaning me, would you understand that I would prefer you stop? It's clearly implied, and an implication from the POTUS is weightier than an implication from any other person in this country (barring being armed, of course). Yes, the headline is not exact, but, based on the story, it is not a huge leap, either.

[quiet.american]

48. Still, how does "he heard that I was demeaning him"="why are you demeaning me?"

There is a difference. The first sets the reason for the call. The second makes it personal.

[NJmaverick]

59. It doesn't matter if one's agenda is to go after President Obama

and the facts be damned

[No Elephants]

72. "I heard you've been demeaning me" clearly implies that the speaker would like

any demeaning to stop. The issue under discussion was whether the headline was misleading, not whether Obama's remark was personal or not. As I have said, the headline does not represent the exact quote fairly, but it is not a total lie, either.

[quiet.american]

78. Obama has a reputation for speaking with & listening to, his critics.

A read of the article shows Obama called up Conyers to give Conyers the opportunity to air his grievances directly to the president.

Trying to represent the conversation as anything else doesn't cut it.

[Mithreal]

141. No Elephants, amazing patience

[JonLP24]

49. I just said both "why" and "stop" are neither quotes

I'm trying to be the moderator(not in the DU sense of the word) here with all this discussion about what was said and what was changed when both of those were written by author. If the poster your replying to is saying this author is lying about changing "why" to "stop" it doesn't make any sense because the author wrote both 'why' and 'stop'.

[NJmaverick]

53. Call it like it is, the headline was deliberately misleading

and it was wrong and dishonest, end of story.

[snagglepuss]

63. BINGO nt

[quiet.american]

73. Not for nothing, but that's a "bingo" to a quote that never happened. nt

[change_notfinetuning]

33. I know da meaning of change - and it aint what Obama thinks it is. What

Obama really feels is embarrassed, as well he should, for not knowing da meaning of the word SHAME!

[NJmaverick]

38. Yes change, like change what Conyers said so one can indulge their hatred for Obama

[Sinti]

94. "da" meaning of change?

Michael Steele, is that you? Let me say, you're doing a fine job, sir. I look forward to more of your dry wit and graveyard humor in the future.

(I'm just kidding with the Steele comment, please know that.) :evilgrin:

I agree fully with the sentiment of your user name. I worry a great deal about the amount and quality of information the president gets, and the lack of cooperation he's getting even from persons in his own party. All the protestations you see reported on in the news are from the Tea Party movement, so you can imagine with limited time, and handlers how much control could be had by very few individuals.

We are probably going to have to make a lot of noise to get this Change thing rolling, you know. It seems that the government has stopped, and is stuck in a quagmire of mud and falsehood - we're going to have to get out and push eventually.

[earcandle]

41. If Obama is feeling demeaned, he should look at his decisions and behavior to see why and then work

to clean up the damage he is causing, not tell someone to shut
up, or want to talk his way out of it. 

[quiet.american]

45. Take a look at the actual article. Its headline is misleading & none of that is true. nt

[No Elephants]

54. Please see Replies 30 and 39.

It remains to be seen whether there are other distortions, though. For some reason, my gut is just not trusting this story at all. I don't mean a discrepancy here and there. I mean the whole thing. I cannot imagine Obama calling Conyers to say "I hear you're demeaning me." I simply doubt that ever happened. Just my gut, though. No link to give.

[NJmaverick]

56. It's funny how you defend the false claims and lies of the article

but when someone paraphrases Obama's critics you immediately demand "the actual quote". It would seem when it comes to Obama you have a set of double standards. Anything goes when it comes to bashing Obama but when someone calls out the bashers you demand meticulous adherence to detail and accuracy.

[No Elephants]

64. You're the one with a double standard. I had posted the exact quote from

Conyers about Obama, not once, but twice, before asking to see the exact quote from Conyers. Not to mention that a great deal of this thread has been devoted to whether the headline matches the exact quote. Seems like you want it only one way, while I am applying the same standard throughout the discussion.

" Anything goes when it comes to bashing Obama but when someone calls out the bashers you demand meticulous adherence to detail and accuracy"

Bullshit. That is never my style. Read this thread alone, and you will see that I express doubt about this story from my first post on the thread to the last.

I often challenge unfounded statements in posts, whether they are for Obama or against Obama, but that does not mean I agree with the article. And, I have never bashed Obama, although I have disagreed with certain policies of his administration.

I also have never demanded anything from any poster.

I heartily recommend you lose the drama and grow up.

On edit: BTW, maybe you should have read Reply 54 in its entirety before you replied to it.

[JonLP24]

67. First of the bat he(or she) said "Is this hill reliable"

Then there was the discussion with what you said "change the quote" when in fact it was the writer's words who inserted stop before 'demean' AND why before the "deamen" the second time. Meaning those two specific words that created such a major distraction in this thread wasn't even said by Obama or Conyers. It was BOTH written by the author. The key word is "told". You'll often this is any article where the paraphrase in the headline with actual quotes inside.

[No Elephants]

82. No, first off the bat, she (I) said "Could this be true?" Then I asked, Is the Hill reliable?

I have also posted what is supposed to be the full direct quote from conyers at least three times and this is the third or fourth time I've posted that I cannot imagine that Obama actually said what Conyers supposedly said Obama said.

Edited to change "can" to "could" since exact words seem to be such a big deal on this thread.

[JonLP24]

83. What I was defending you from

was when NJMaverick said this "It's funny how you defend the false claims and lies of the article"

I looked at every post you posted to see where you defending false claims and I didn't see it and tried to point that out and you were questioning and not defending. Why is it you always misunderstand me? My fault sorry. :hi:

[No Elephants]

92. No need whatever for you to apologize. I don't think I am misunderstand that particular post. It's

only that you said the first thing I posted was XYZ, when that was really the second thing I posted. I was not arguing with you, so much as sticking to the facts. (Contrary to some of the more hysterical posters, I do try to be factual.)

And, I agree, I have not been defending false claims. Why on earth would I? I have been challenging some posts and adding to others, nothing less, nothing more.

[JonLP24]

93. Oh I know

and I apologize for not including the entire post. I was just trying to make a quick point and I thought that one line was enough to make that point. Again I do apologize for not including it in full.

[No Elephants]

98. Again, absolutely no need apology from you is indicated. You did make your point,. I just added to

it bc that is just me. We were both simply saying that I had not defending any false claims. To the contrary, I expressed my doubt about the entire story from my first post. I apologize if my adding to your post came across as arguing with you.

:toast:

On edit: Sorry this has to be my last post for a while bc I have an appointment I must get to in a bit.

[Ed76638]

60. Obama, you better listen to the old man.

He knows what the fuck he's talking about.

[debbierlus]

62. Obama demeans his liberal base every day of the week

The vanity.

[L. Coyote]

65. Obama should stop demeaning his campaign slogan!

Where is the change? O = W

[HughMoran]

88. We all know you hate Obama's guts

Nothing you post is new.

[Mithreal]

143. And, Hugh, we all know you are one of the meaner posters

[ChiciB1]

117. I'm With You debbierlus! Things Are Stinking Up More Than I Had Thought!~

I'm not Obama hater, and I certainly don't want to have someone ask me "would McPalin be better" either. Time's a wastin, and I'm tired of the "games" that I feel are being played at the expense of the the Democratic base!

Or perhaps even "we the people!"

[formercia]

74. In defense of President Obama

This article seems to try and portray President Obama as having a Tin Ear, but I can assure you that he does listen. He reads what you write, perhaps not as much as when he was in the Senate but he listens.

He was dealt a bad hand from a stacked deck.

[snagglepuss]

125. Yes he was dealt a terrible hand but he wasn't dealt his advisors. nt

[Mithreal]

166. Ouch, well said.

[pjt7]

85. Why did Obama stop working for the

American people?

Does O really think people/Democrats are going to clap their hands like zombies & not look at what his actions are?

[emilyg]

111. One can hope he learns.

[ecstatic]

87. So rather than take that golden opportunity to discuss his concerns

with Obama, who obviously valued his opinion enough to make a personal phone call, Conyers chooses to run to the media to reveal the details of a personal phone call? How can I read this and not end up questioning Conyers' sincerity?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. conyers is a PUMA

"Conyers was the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse Obama over then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

Conyers earlier this year noted that he spent most weekends in 2007 and 2008 on the campaign trail trying to get Obama elected.

“I did whatever was necessary to be done to win. I met with ministers, I met with unions, I met with lawyers, I met with community activists, I met with healthcare people,” Conyers explained in early April."


what an awful man

[NJmaverick]

105. How come you didn't consider the lack of honesty in the headline important?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

113. first i didnt say it wasnt important, two, i dont think its as dishonest as you make it out to be

third, i was addressing the way du'er view criticism of the president. fourth, i am not expected in every post to cover every angle of a story. my desire was to cover the du reaction.

[NJmaverick]

128. You have a headline that is completely and utterly false

and you don't think it's dishonest. :eyes:

Maybe you should look at your own backyard before you criticize the neighbor's lawn

[La Lioness Priyanka]

132. again i didnt say that. i find it ironic that you misconstrue what i say

while shrieking on about intellectual honesty

[Mithreal]

145. NJm, I get it, you hate the headline.

Another DU'er posted that headlines are usually not written by the author or something similar and I didn't see a response from you to that.

Why are you SO focused on the headline? Did you really not know that articles often use teaser headlines, or do you really just hate headline writers?

[NJmaverick]

154. I can't believe you are defending dishonesty. I will note that for furture interactions

[Mithreal]

161. Straw Men and Women unite!

[ShortnFiery]

97. IMO, Conyers is spot on ...

unfortunately some people still think everything President Obama does "is golden."

When you wake up from the "Yes We Can" ether, it's going to HURT ... a lot.

Many of us have been there. You'll either "wake up" and realize that we have a CORPORATIST President OR you'll continue to "justify the unjustifiable."

Look CLOSELY at his decisions since he's been in office?

It's NOT chess, these decisions are moving us ever closer to full economic fascism. :(

[Mithreal]

147. Very good point, it's gonna hurt.

I still am even though I have always had doubts.

[MNDemNY]

100. BOW TO ME OR SUFFER MY WRATH !!!!!!

:puke:

[NJmaverick]

104. Excellent outrage over a fake issue (Obama never said anything like the headline)

now where have I seen that sort of thing before....

[MNDemNY]

124. the lining of your colon?

[NJmaverick]

129. If you want to compare you or your actions to the lining of my colon

you will not get an argument from me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

101. Conyers is just cranky because his wife is going to jail

[Mithreal]

149. Interesting, same person keeps saying this over and over in Conyers threads.

Have you met im?

[Freddie Stubbs]

153. Yes, I have met John Conyers

Have you?

[Mithreal]

162. Don't let anyone say you are not wily. Thanks for the laugh.

[Freddie Stubbs]

167. I used to work on the Hill. I have met many members of Congress

[kstewart33]

102. Didn't know Conyers was a tell-all kind of guy. What a jerk. nt

[impik]

110. So he refused to "chat" with the president and then

he leaked a private conversation?

What a low. Disgusting.

[QC]

131. Conyers is an enemy of the people. n/t

[impik]

115. Shame on you. Bunch of liars

The headline has nothing to do with the article, and the article actually makes the president looks like the only adult in the room.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quiet.american]

120. Nothing like an outright fabrication of a headline like this to bring out the usual suspects.

[EFerrari]

133. The "usual suspects"? You mean, active posters at DU?

And if you read the article, you'll notice the headline is based on a remark of Conyers'. It's not an "outright fabrication".

[NJmaverick]

137. I think the poster is referring to the DUers that disregard facts and intellectual honesty

in the pursuit of personal agendas

[ruggerson]

140. You have no personal agenda?

(HINT: We all have personal agendas. That's what being involved in politics is about: personal agendas. Personal and altruistic are not mutually exclusive.)

[NJmaverick]

157. I use the term personal agenda in the sense of self interest

still isn't it pretty silly to ask and then answer your own question? Perhaps if you allow others to answer your questions you may find there are other perspectives on things.

[EFerrari]

146. Personalizing everything gets incredibly tedious. n/t

[NJmaverick]

155. I think dishonesty (which apparantly you support) to be far more tedious

but that's just me

[EFerrari]

158. Really? You seem very comfortable with it. n/t

[NJmaverick]

159. See there you go again. You recced a dishonest post, while I did just the opposite

[Mithreal]

150. Maybe you'll point them out for us? It would be oh so helpful.

[NJmaverick]

156. Anyone supporting this post's dishonest headline

[Mithreal]

163. Anyone who gets all superflustered or knotheaded over a headline

[sabrina 1]

122. I'm glad someone on the 'left' finally got some attention

from Obama. Mostly they have excluded from the health care debate.

Conyers criticed Obama's health care policies. Republicans criticize him for simply existing. Yet, he continues to insist that his decisions must be 'bi-partisan'. Maybe he the kind of person who cares more about the opinions of those who don't like him. Looking at the difference in the way he treats Republicans who outright despise him, and Democrats who were more than willing to support him, it certainly seems that way. Now, he's learning that you cannot just take people for granted.

I hope Conyers does sit down and talk to him. And I hope the conversation is about why so many are disappointed with the health care so far. I hope Conyers asks him why he has not fought for, at the very least, a real Public Option and I hope he points out that even that would be a compromise.

I hope the conversation isn't like the one Rahm Emmanuel had with liberal bloggers. Asking them to be quiet. Which sadly, so many agreed to do.

This whole debate isn't about Obama or Conyers, it's about the American people. Rahm seems to think it's all about Insider Politics in DC and the rest of us should just STFU.

[truthisfreedom]

134. Piece of shit headline.

Obama comes across well in the actual article.

[rateyes]

135. I can't stand John Conyers. He proved he's a damned coward

with his inaction in the face of the high crimes of the past administration. That said, I have to say he's right about Obama's lack of leadership on healthcare and his wrongheadedness on the Afghanistan War.

So, fuck off, Conyers. And, Mr. Obama, lead in the areas Conyers failed to lead.

[struggle4progress]

136. Obama advisor: It's O.K. for Obama and Conyers to 'blow off a little steam'

Posted: December 8th, 2009 06:35 PM ET
From CNN's Lauren Kornreich

... White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett said that Obama and Conyers have "the kind of relationship where they can call each other anytime" and "blow off a little steam" ...

Conyers office would not comment on the exchange when contacted by CNN ...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/08/obama-advisor-its-o-k-for-obama-and-conyers-to-blow-off-a-little-steam/

[bamacrat]

144. Oh. John CONYERS I thought yall were talking about John CORNYN...

and I was about to go off because he is a douche. All is well.

[Hekate]

152. Good! I'm glad Obama is saying "Let's talk about it" to a member of Congress. Conyers is big enough

... man to talk one on one with the leader of his Party about their differences, and Obama is a big enough man to just pick up the damn phone and find out what's going on.

Good lord, from some of the responses here you'd think they were having a knock-down-drag-out fight or slapping each other across the face with their gloves prior to announcing a duel at dawn to regain their honor.

Hekate

[robcon]

160. It's the fact that Conyers went public with it...

and presented his side.

Not a good thing to do.

[mdmc]

164. Nelson Muntz "Stop Demeaning yourself"

would if I could, sir..

[marshall]

165. Maybe Obama can start posting that message here at DU

Unless he's already doing so on the down low.