|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Whatever happened to the Obama we saw in 2008? The one that touted bipartisanship and a new different kind of politics? What happened to ""There is not a liberal America and a conservative America, There is a United States of America."? (- from his speech in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention.) And yet, he wants to act like the normal old politician who politicizes everything and does not want to actually be bipartisan. Look at the current Unemployment extension that took 5 or 6 tries to pass. Why did it take them so long? Because Obama and the democrats wanted it their way and did not want to compromise and act in a bipartisan manner and get it done in the first place. And now Obama is crying out that Americans "deserve more than obstruction.' (link) And yet, the Democrats have obstructed the bill as well by not listening to the demands of Republicans, who some are on record that they would vote for it if the cost was offset rather than borrowing all the money for it, especially considering there is a large chunk of unspent stimilus money just sitting around collecting dust or actually just cutting something somewhere to get it done. Where exactly is the bipartisanship that Obama talked about in 2008? I suppose we may see it if Republicans take over one of the bodies of Congress, but by then Obama will only be acting bipartisan by force and not by choice. Where is the hope and change? There has been little hope as our economy continues to stammer on and the only change I have seen so far will be the change left in our future paychecks as we need to pay back the $3 Trillion deficit that we have incurred in 2009 & 2010 whereas we had a total of $2 Trillion in 8 years between 2001 & 2008. But then again, who did we have to vote for in 2008? Another politician that talks out of both sides of his mouth. McCain was a shadow of his formal self, if the McCain in 2000 wasn't just the same facade we see now.. In 2007, he was crying for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and now in 2010 he wants nothing but to send them home.. Which McCain do you trust? And of course, Republicans cried that Kerry was a major flipflopper.. But in the end, Obama is just the normal run of the mill politician that says anything to get elected. I thought he was a better choice in 2008 over McCain, although I was not impressed enough by either one to vote for them. Now, it is becoming more and more apparent that Obama isn't living up to what he said he stood for and he should be called out for it.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Part of me thinks it is his inexperience in thinking that he could come into Washington and get both sides to come together on many solutions to ride off into the sunset together while it rained candy.
He seems a bit more of a personal people's president than Bush did but that doesn't mean much when we're still spending away money we really don't have to spend.
A bit off topic but another thing that doesn't help are Olberman, O'reily, Beck, Rush and whatever crazy opinion entertainers are out there. They use these buzzwords of socialist, czar's, communist, racist, right/left wing nutjobs, etc. which then dilute the actual facts and policies that a party may have. These personalities do nothing but keep us divided as a nation which sure doesn't help in the political world.
While I do want to just give up on the American political system and politicians all together I still believe there is hope somewhere in this system. I think Ron Paul has a few good ideas that could benefit the country right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048 |
Quote:
He seems a bit more of a personal people's president than Bush did
I don't understand this one. Bush spent tremendous amounts of time, often away from the view of the press, with the families of the victims of the 9-11 attacks.
He visited soldiers in hospitals who were injured in the line of duty.
He sat and prayed with families of soldiers killed in action.
I think that Bush was tremendous at meeting with individuals or families in private settings..... perhaps one of the best Presidents in this regard in our country's history. He had his faults, to be sure, but he was just amazing meeting with people.
I think that Obama, thus far, is isolated as President. He gives very few speeches or press conferences. He seems unwilling to go before the American people to convince them to support his agenda. His speeches play only to his most ardent supporters, rather than trying to bring in support from those who are undecided.
I think that he could have used the "bully pulpit" to try to gather support for his agenda rather than having to ram it through Congress on a damn near Party line. I find him to be unprepared when he does have press conferences. For a man who won a Presidential election largely on the strength of his oratory skills. this has been astonishing.
I am curious as to what specific things Obama has done that make him seem personable to you?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563 |
I won't debate this too much because I really think that Obama has slipped up on this..
But I wil say that Bipartisanship is a two way street and I don't believe the Republican party has been very bipartisan either..,
The reasons are insignificant. they all either want to play nice with each other or they don't. and neither side wants that..
Personally, I lay a lot of that on Pelosi and Reed but that's just me.
But Obama is the head of the Democratic party and as it's leader, he should be the voice of reason,, he has not been. Again, JMO
So, in the end, it takes two to tango and it appears that neither side likes to dance...
I can't or won't lay this totally at the feet of Obama..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I won't debate this too much because I really think that Obama has slipped up on this..
But I wil say that Bipartisanship is a two way street and I don't believe the Republican party has been very bipartisan either..,
The issue though with the bipartisanship, is that Obama was saying time and time again that he was bipartisan and supported its prinicples.. Though, a lot of politicians always say that and don't follow through with it, but then again Obama claimed to not be the normal politician and that he was going to issue in a new way to be a politician, which has not happened..
Republicans may have not been bipartisan as well, though true bipartisanship comes from those who hold the power and relinquish some of it to allow for the minority to be heard and have some input as well.. The Democrats and Obama have been doing things their way without any regard to any compromise or bipartisanship.. I'm not saying that they have to give in 100%, but give some room to compromise. If the democrats even agreed to finance half or a third of the current unemployment benefits extension costs with money they have as oppose to borrowing it all, I doubt it would have took so many tries to pass it.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
RWers...tell me..when did the party of "NO"...
begin to say NO?
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
RWers...tell me..when did the party of "NO"...
begin to say NO?
Which party of "No" are you asking about? The ones represented by the donkey while Bush was in office? or the ones represented by the elephant while Obama is in office?
You can argue that Republicans are saying NO No NO all day long, but what have the Democrats done to make them want to say Yes to anything???
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,247
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,247 |
Can't exactly be bipartisan when the other side keeps on moving the goalposts farther to the right. There have been numerous examples of decently moderate republicans changing their policy so it wouldn't align with the president's policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
Tux...see, you can't answer the question...you do nothing but make up some fake excuse to attempt to change the subject.
When did the party of NO, begin to say NO...was it on Obama's first day in office or his second?
And don't claim Obama did not reach out to your party of NO....
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
I won't debate this too much because I really think that Obama has slipped up on this..
But I wil say that Bipartisanship is a two way street and I don't believe the Republican party has been very bipartisan either..,
The issue though with the bipartisanship, is that Obama was saying time and time again that he was bipartisan and supported its prinicples.. Though, a lot of politicians always say that and don't follow through with it, but then again Obama claimed to not be the normal politician and that he was going to issue in a new way to be a politician, which has not happened..
Republicans may have not been bipartisan as well, though true bipartisanship comes from those who hold the power and relinquish some of it to allow for the minority to be heard and have some input as well.. The Democrats and Obama have been doing things their way without any regard to any compromise or bipartisanship.. I'm not saying that they have to give in 100%, but give some room to compromise. If the democrats even agreed to finance half or a third of the current unemployment benefits extension costs with money they have as oppose to borrowing it all, I doubt it would have took so many tries to pass it.
we can debate that forever and I doubt we change each others mind very much,,,,,But essentially, I'm sticking with "two to tango' and neither side wanted to dance. 
The blame game is getting old.. have you noticed that when you say something about Obama, someone comes along and says "so what, Bush did the same thing" same in reverse by the way. LOL,, it's true,,
So we can go the blame route on everything. and it will solve exactly nothing.
Politicians are interested in only Two things.. telling you whats wrong and then telling you who's to blame for it. (ripped that line off from a movie..LOL)
Have you noticed the large amount of lip service we get.. not much in the way of action, but a helluva lot of lip service.. and it doesn't matter much if the politician is republican or democrat.. if they open thier mouths, be wary of what comes out.
I've basically given up on the parties.. they are no different. they pander and lie and steal from us...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
RWers...tell me..when did the party of "NO"...
begin to say NO?
Day 1 I hope. Why negotiate, why collaborate, why strive for non-partisanship? Reaching concensus and agreement on an idiotic democrats plan is still getting you at least half of an idiotic plan.. yea for us, we only get screwed half as much. I'd rather just say "NO" than enact half of the crap that this guy and his simple minded partisan minions are putting forward.
My question is, what happened to his approval numbers? He was well ahead in the polls, he won the election by a fair margin, his numbers were great, he's raising taxes, attacking the wealthy, implementing a government run healthcare, putting hurdles in front of business, showing his inexperience and incompetence in dealing with a major event like the oil spill.. he is doing every single thing he said he was going to do and his numbers are going down... Why? To quote coach Green, "He is who we thought he was." If you voted for him, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU VOTED FOR AND A LOT OF US ALREADY KNEW IT.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
Quote:
Day 1 I hope.
I rest my case.
Obama was a fool to think that Republicans cared one damn bit about bringing this country together. The GOP wanted to divide this country as much as they could and slow down the Obama agenda.
Obama wasted nearly a year of his administration attempting to compromise with the GOP on healthcare, until he realized all they cared about was Waterloo.
Last edited by mac; 07/22/10 02:02 PM.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Tux...see, you can't answer the question...you do nothing but make up some fake excuse to attempt to change the subject.
Are you mad that he's basically emulating YOU?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048 |
Oh please! Obama was negotiating with HIS OWN PARTY! The Republicans could not do a damn thing to stop his Screw The US Healthcare System To Hell bill from advancing. They lacked the numbers in both houses. It was only when Kennedy died and they suddenly lacked a fillibuster-proof majority that the House decided that a lousy bill was politically more favorable than no bill, approved the Senate version, and it was signed into law. The "Stimulus" bill was the same case. He negotiated and negotiated WITH HIS OWN PARTY OVER WHAT TO WASTE MONEY ON. The Republicans had no say in the matter whatsoever. They lacked a 40th vote to fillibuster the spending mess. Mac... you want to whine about Republican obstruction ...... yet they cannot stop anything. It's YOUR OWN PARTY that has 100% of the power. They have both houses, a fillibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate, and the White House. Whatever happens, for good or ill. is 100% on the Democrats. Period. Your argument is like blaming the mute for screwing up the chorus. It makes no sense whatsoever. Of course, we're used to arguments from you that make no sense.  
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
ex...let me explain something...
I have a very good reason why I do not answer every lil rwers question...
...the ratio of RWer vs LWers on "this" message board is about 40 to 1, in favor of the Radical Right. If I answered every question directed at me, that is all I would get done doing.
In most cases, the individual asking the question already knows the answer.
In some cases, a few individuals are simply too lazy to look up the subject being discussed to find their own answer to the question.
If someone posts a legit question that can't be answered by doing a quick search, I do try to answer those questions...but again, with the ratio of RW to LW being what it is, no way can or will I answer every question asked.
RWers don't have that excuse, do they? Most who refuse to answer my questions are too busy hiding from the question and the answer...lol...
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,635 |
Quote:
ex...let me explain something...
I have a very good reason why I do not answer ANY lil rwers question...
Fixed...
"FIALURE IS NOT AN OPTION...!"
-mac
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I rest my case.
Obama was a fool to think that Republicans cared one damn bit about bringing this country together. The GOP wanted to divide this country as much as they could and slow down the Obama agenda.
mac, of course the GOP wanted to slow down the Obama agenda.. because it's a lousy agenda, its an agenda they spent the last couple of years trying to expose as awful.. do you not get that? Where was the left cooperating with George Bush on privatizing Social Security? Where were they on school vouchers? Conservative judges? Was the left helping those things along in the spirit of cooperation or were they obstructing every chance they got? I swear you act like this game has never been played before... 
I can't speak for all republicans but I'd dearly love to bring this country together, but if it takes trillions of dollars in debt, a socialist healthcare system which will add more to the debt, raising taxes that will hurt our economy, etc.. they hell no I don't care if we are all brought together.. I'd rather stand for what I believe in on the outside than capitulate to agreeing to that mess.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Quote:
ex...let me explain something...
I have a very good reason why I do not answer every lil rwers question...
You should've stopped there.
It is evident you don't answer questions because the facts never back you up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Tux...see, you can't answer the question...you do nothing but make up some fake excuse to attempt to change the subject.
When did the party of NO, begin to say NO...was it on Obama's first day in office or his second?
And don't claim Obama did not reach out to your party of NO....
Well considering that you did not address it to me. I wasn't required to answer your question that needed to be clarified to begin with., I just asked a question to even clarify which party of "No" you were referring to, so that the R'wingers you addressed it to could answer it.. I'm not a Right Winger which whom you addressed that question to.....
Were you referring to the Democrats during Bush or the Republicans during Obama?
It goes both ways... The Democrats certainly were the Party of "No" when it was Bush and the Republicans calling the shots...
And since you insist on believing that Obama has been reaching out to the Republicans (once again not my party even though I've mentioned this time and time again but you cannot seem to read or comprehend that.... and I even delve into it in this very thread where I even say that I SUPPORTED OBAMA OVER MCCAIN EVEN THOUGH NEITHER IMPRESSED ME ENOUGH FOR MY VOTE)?
So, when has OBAMA reached out to the Republicans other than to say to them "we need to pass MY VERSION of the bill and no variation that could make it better?
AND..
Why do you expect the Republicans to say yes to a bill that a) they have no hand in making because the Democrats just want to ram everything through without any compromise? and b) is not that great of a bill to begin with?
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
. they hell no I don't care if we are all brought together.. I'd rather stand for what I believe in on the outside than capitulate to agreeing to that mess.
I agree with you DC.
The side in power always wants the minority to compromise their principles. The reality of it is.... what are the independent voters willing to get stuck with as the price for getting what they DO want when they vote? Right now, based on the poles, it sounds like a majority of the independents want their money back. They were sold on bi-partisan utopia, but got bamboozled by Pelosi, Reid, and the big "0".
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048 |
Quote:
ex...let me explain something...
I have a very good reason why I do not answer every lil rwers question...
Because I have no answers to anything. I am really good at typing RW'ers and Bush's fault though.
Now it's fixed.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048 |
mac ... show me ONE example of a "RW'er" not answering your questions.
Come on ..... just 1.
I still want to know how anything is the fault of the Republican "being the party of no" ..... when they can't stop a damn thing the Democrats care to cram down the American People's throats.
I would wait for an answer ...... but I know that you won't answer anything with a real answer.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,247
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,247 |
All 40 of them are a single bloc vote. I have yet to see more than maybe one or two republicans stray from their party. Some of it may be idealistic and policy. But for the majority they know that in order to get elected again, and not disgruntle the people who voted for them, they must oppose everything that comes out of a Democrat's mouth. Even if it was a decently moderate statement they would still move farther right.
I always thought that the cutting of NASA could quite be in line with republican policy. It's cutting out government intrusion, and Space Travel would serve better in the hands of private business. And yet, when announced they flipped and said that it was the government's policy to continue said program.
But then again, Congress is no longer about lawmaking and policy anymore. You're basically voting to see which person gets a 2 or 6 year vacation. They may work under the guise that they stand for certain principles but, this session of congress this year has seen the least amount of cooperation and compromise than any other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,048 |
What you are failing to realize is that ..... while the Republicans may be a 40 vote block ..... that means NOTHING.
The Democrats, as a block, can do anything they damn well please. The Republicans cannot even fillibuster. They don't have the votes.
As far as NASA ..... Republicans have traditionally supported funding for NASA. NASA has done a lot of important work for the country ... creating a large number of scientific advances ...... and considering their relatively "small" $18 billion budget, and the fact that they employ 18,000 people ..... it's generally thought of as a pretty good deal as compared to most government spending.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Here is a pretty fair article on what is going on.. CQ: 2009 Was The Most Partisan Year Ever by Andrea Seabrook January 11, 2010 A year ago as a new president took office, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that the United States must be governed from the middle. "You have to bring people together to reach consensus on solutions that are sustainable and acceptable to the American people," she said. It had been a rough eight years of partisanship and polarization under George W. Bush. Even Republican House leader John Boehner said if the Democrats wanted bipartisanship, he'd work with them. It didn't work out that way. This past year was - by several measures — the most partisan ever — or at least since Congressional Quarterly began taking stock in 1953. By many CQ measures, the only people who have been brought together are the Democrats — with themselves — and the same for Republicans. "I'm not surprised by the numbers, given what I've seen over the course of the last year," said political scientist Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "I've been around Washington for 40 years, immersed in the politics of Congress and the White House. And it's nasty and brutish, as much or more as I've ever seen." Biggest Party Divide Ever Every year, Congressional Quarterly measures the percentage of partisan votes taken in the House and Senate. A roll call vote is considered partisan if a majority of Democrats votes against a majority of Republicans. It has hovered around a relatively high 50 percent in the House for the past two decades and stayed there this year, at 51 percent. But in the Senate, it was a whopping 72 percent - the highest percentage of partisan votes ever tallied in that chamber. House And Senate Party Unity The graphic shows the percentage of partisan votes taken in the House and Senate. A roll call vote is considered partisan if a majority of Democrats votes against a majority of Republicans. Moreover, when the House and Senate took partisan votes, Democrats voted in droves with other Democrats, as did Republicans. Congressional Quarterly measures "party support" as the percentage of the time that lawmakers, on average, vote in agreement with a majority of their party on a partisan vote. In 2009 in the Senate, Democrats stuck together for an average party support score of 91 percent — the highest ever. The House Democrats' score was the same — 91 percent — just below the all-time high of 92 percent set in 2007 and 2008. Republican Party support was also high, though not record-breaking: 85 percent in the Senate and 87 percent in the House. Ornstein said the divide is all the more striking because 2009 started out after an election that was a clear expression of public support for change and a new bipartisanship. "You have a president who wins in a landslide," Ornstein said. "He enters office on Jan. 20 with a 70 percent approval rating. We have an economy teetering at the edge of the abyss, and he comes up with a major initiative to deal with it. Three weeks into his presidency, not a single Republican in the House votes for the bill." It was a signal of the year to come: Partisan divides on the budget, environmental legislation, health care. And it was a striking turn from what the majority of Americans seemed to want in the fall of 2008. Ornstein has some idea why. "If a member of one party collaborates with a member of another, then you might be reducing in some way the wedge issues that will give you a chance to gain seats," Ornstein said, "so you may be jeopardizing something larger." In other words, Ornstein said, today politicians are constantly campaigning. Unlike much of the 20th century when Democrats were perceived as a sort of permanent majority, now the control of the House and Senate seems always up for grabs. So the parties work hard to emphasize their differences. I've been around Washington for 40 years, immersed in the politics of Congress and the White House. And it's nasty and brutish, as much or more as I've ever seen. Another factor, said Ornstein, is the increasingly conservative Republican party. There is little room for ideological conversation in the GOP. Moderates these days tend to be Democrats. And perhaps most important to this era of striking political division, is the rise of partisan media. Ornstein says the left and the right each have their own spin doctors...on the air and on the Internet, 24-7. So the two parties can't even agree to a set of facts underlying any particular policy debate. "Put all of that together and you've got a kind of witches brew that drives our parties apart and enhances partisanship and ideological division," Ornstein said. Two Distinct Perspectives Of course, there can be an upside for the party with a strong majority. CQ points out that all the partisanship seemed to pay off for the Democrats — who were victorious on partisan votes 92 percent of the time in the Senate, the highest ever for the majority party — and 94 percent of the time in the House, also the highest percentage ever. Indeed, the economic stimulus bill was enacted. Both chambers passed the health care bill. The House also passed a major climate change bill and financial regulatory legislation. "The paradox here is, for all the dysfunction, this Congress is on a course to becoming one of the most productive in history," Ornstein said, "but in the worst, most difficult, most rancorous and partisan fashion." Put the question of partisanship to members of Congress, and you get two distinct perspectives on the problem. "I've been here for three decades," said David Dreier (R-CA), a top House Republican. "In this Congress, I will tell you, we've been completely shut out.” In 2009, Republicans had little chance to offer their alternatives to Democrats' legislation. In the House, the majority tightly controlled debate. In the Senate, Democrats held together and blocked filibusters. Dreier said if Democrats want bipartisanship, they could broaden their agenda and allow more participation from Republicans. Then again, you can look at this from a different angle. "The Republicans have, in effect, chosen not to participate for, in my opinion, political objectives rather than policy objectives — because they believe if we fail, they will succeed," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). Republicans made the political calculation that they couldn't win back the majority by voting with the Democrats, Hoyer said. So most of them voted no on everything they could in the House. In the Senate, they used every parliamentary trick in the book to slow down or halt debate. What's the endgame? In a strictly partisan world, you have either great productivity or total gridlock. If one party dominates and holds it together, things move. But if there's divided government, everything screeches to a halt. That could easily happen after the 2010 elections, where Congress changes from the most productive since the New Deal and the Great Society — to no productivity at all. web page
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
But NPR is the biggest bastion of conservativ ... oh wait.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Forget the war of North vs. South... coming soon, Left v. Right.
Fortunately for the Right, they've got all the guns, hehe.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,104
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,104 |
I haven't posted in awhile but I thought I'd throw in my two cents here.
I have never witnessed such a political divide or lack of bipartisanship since I've started following politics in general, and with good reason. The Democrats have no need for it. For the first time in a great long while; one political party (Dems) held a supermajority. They control the House, Senate, and the White House. Bipartisanship usually occurs when the two sides are stuck on an issue and have to reach a middle ground in order to pass the legislation. But that hasn't been the case. The Democrats control so much of congress, every Republican has to vote against such legislation just to prevent it (before Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat even if every Republican said no the bill would pass). Why would the Dems want bipartisanship when they can pass any legislation on their agenda? The Republicans would do the same thing, don't get me wrong.
This country needs a system of checks and balances. Look back at the most prosperous years in recent memory. The 80's with Reagan in the WH and a Democrat congress, and the 90's with Clinton in the WH and a GOP congress.
When Bush came to power and the GOP held congress spending began to circle out of control. So what do the american people do? They put Democrats in control of congress and Obama in the WH. And what do you know, a single party essentially holds all the power and spending is STILL out of control. That was a big reason I wanted McCain. He was a shadow of his 2000 maverick self but he had a history of bipartisanship and could keep congress in check. Policywise Obama was about as left as they came and giving him a congress completely controlled by his own party is a recipe for disaster
I think Obama can still turn out to be an alright President, but he NEEDS for the GOP to gain more footing in congress, otherwise there is nothing to keep this ridiculous amount of spending in check.
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Every year, Congressional Quarterly measures the percentage of partisan votes taken in the House and Senate. A roll call vote is considered partisan if a majority of Democrats votes against a majority of Republicans.
Umm... is this worded poorly or does it only count as "partisan" if it favors the democrats?
Stupid right wing NP... oh wait.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
No, it's worded fine.... it isn't saying if it favors the Dems.
It is saying if the vote is split as a majority of Dem vs a majority of Rep.... e.g. if it is clear that the vote blindly follows party lines.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
J/C
Does anyone remember the memo sent out by democratic leaders when Bush defeated Gore? It stated that they were to vote against anything the guy wanted. Thinking back, it might have been after he defeated Kerry, but I remember it clearly. The leadership gave orders to oppose anything Bush suggested. They did, and at times even undermined the security of the nation.
Mac calling republicans the party of "no", is just about as ludicriss as Pelosi and her "culture of corruption" campaign. The democrats have so much corruption going on now and in the past it is laughable that they can point fingers with a straight face.
Foley was a gay guy trying to pick up guys in a bathroom......Yet Clinton had affairs in the Oval office and lied under oath.
Lott was made to resign for saying Thurmond should have been elected President (racism)....Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK
What about the congressman in Lousiana with thousands hidden in his freezer. John Edwards...........I could go on, but the double standard is rediculous.
Bush is bashed for the prescription drug law, but it was basically a democratic plan, same with no child left behind.
Those who try to paint the Dems as goody two shoes are goofy.
The party of "no". How about the grandstanding by Gore and Kennedy calling Bush a liar, when all along they had the same info on Iraq, and even made speeches saying the same thing about Iraq Bush did. Then the memo went out and they all changed their tune. Flat out lying, and being boosted up by a biased media.
Party of "no"...........what a crock of _ _ _ _!!!!!!!!!
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
It's a revolving door of accusations.
I see no difference between the two parties. The only difference is what the party in power/minority is being accused of.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,861
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,861 |
Republicans have amazing integrity among their ranks. They have much more party discipline than democrats.
They need every bit of it to delay implementation of the Democratic agenda.
Obama's fault is that he assumed bi-partisan meant bi-partisan.
I believe that he has been frustrated by the Senate's filibuster rule. Which due to the make up of the senate is disproportionate to the population of the US, and not as reflective of the US general opinion on legislative matters.
He should have approached the subject as if he was only able to get democratic votes, which is essentially how it has played out.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,686
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,686 |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...ewsreel_opinion=The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy Everyone knew most of the press corps was hoping for Obama in 2008. Newly released emails show that hundreds of them were actively working to promote him.. By FRED BARNES When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans. My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case. .Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism. My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision. It's thanks to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn't revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired. This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks. WSJ.com Columnist John Fund reports on a media scandal. Also, Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady breaks down the President's pledge to end bailouts and analyzes the Fed Chairman's latest visit to Capitol Hill. .JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote: "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction." No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire. Among journalists in general, there's always been a herd instinct. Eugene McCarthy, the Minnesota senator and Democratic presidential candidate, once described political writers as birds on a telephone wire. When one bird flew to the wire across the street, they all did. In Mr. Ackerman's case, I'm glad none of the birds joined him across the street. We've often seen media groupthink in campaigns. In 1980, most of the media decided that President Jimmy Carter was being mean-spirited in his re-election effort with his harsh denunciations of Ronald Reagan, his Republican opponent. The media turned the meanness issue into major story. In 1992, journalists treated the economy as if it were dead in the water, though a recovery from a mild recession had begun early the previous year. I could go on. I think JournoList is—or was—fundamentally different, and not simply because one of its members proposed to make palpably false accusations. As best I can tell, those involved in JournoList considered themselves part of a team. And their goal was to make sure the team won. In 2008, this was Mr. Obama's team. More recently, the goal seems to have been to defeat the conservative team. Until JournoList came along, liberal journalists were rarely part of a team. Neither are conservative journalists today, so far as I know. If there's a team, no one has asked me to join. As a conservative, I normally write more favorably about Republicans than Democrats and I routinely treat conservative ideas as superior to liberal ones. But I've never been part of a discussion with conservative writers about how we could most help the Republican or the conservative team. My experience with other conservative journalists is that they are loners. One of the most famous conservative columnists of the past half-century, the late Robert Novak, is a good example. I knew him well for 35 years. He didn't tell me what stories he was working on nor ask what I was planning to write. He never mentioned how we might promote Republicans or aid the conservative cause, nor did I. What was particularly pathetic about the scheme to smear Mr. Obama's critics was labeling them as racists. The accusation has been made so frequently in recent years, without evidence to back it up, that it has little effect. It's now the last refuge of liberal scoundrels. The first call I got after the Daily Caller unearthed the emails involving me was from Karl Rove. He said he wanted to talk to his "fellow racist." We laughed about this. But the whole episode was also sad. I didn't sputter at the thought of being called a racist. But it was sad to see what journalism, or at least a segment of it, had come to. Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Republicans have amazing integrity among their ranks.
You're being sarcastic, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
Charles Rangel charged with ethics violations: How bad for Democrats?
Charles Rangel, a Democratic congressman from New York, faces a House trial in which eight members will rule on the findings. Democrats will be concerned about its effect on midterms.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D) of New York walks outside his Capitol Hill office in Washington, shortly after a congressional investigative panel accused Mr. Rangel of undisclosed ethics violations on July 22.
Hyungwon Kang/Reuters
Enlarge
By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff Writer / July 22, 2010
Members of a House panel on Thursday charged Rep. Charles Rangel (D) of New York with violating a list of House ethics rules.
Skip to next paragraph
Photo Gallery
Ethically challenged Congressmen
Related Stories
Why Charlie Rangel stepped down as Ways and Means chairman
What did GOP's bid to oust Charles Rangel accomplish?
The subject of an 18-month investigation, Representative Rangel – a 40-year member of Congress and the House’s fourth most-senior member – now faces a House trial in which eight members (four Democrats and four Republicans) will rule on the findings.
The four-member panel of the House ethics committee did not lay out the alleged violations in detail. But they are reported to include at least some of the most serious.
IN PICTURES: Ethically challenged Congressmen
The allegations range from misuse of rent-controlled apartments in New York City and failure to disclose income from a villa in the Dominican Republic to reports that he exchanged official favors – a tax loophole for oil driller Nabors Industries Ltd. – in exchange for a $1 million gift to the Charles Rangel Center at City College of New York.
Last year, Republicans failed to force Rangel to step down as chairman of the influential tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. But when the House ethics panel reported that Rangel had violated House gift rules by accepting corporate funding for trips to the Caribbean, he relinquished his committee chairmanship in March.
Ethics watchdog calls for Rangel's resignation
At the time, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW), an ethics watchdog in Washington, told the Monitor that “trips to the Caribbean are the least of his problems.”
“As we get deeper into election season, support is eroding for Rangel, because members know that ethics matters with voters,” she said.
With the latest turn in Rangel’s fight to avoid further political damage, Ms. Sloan’s organization called for the congressman’s resignation from the House.
“Today’s action demonstrates that the notoriously lax Ethics Committee has found substantial reason to believe that Representative Rangel has violated federal law, House rules, or both,” Sloan said in a statement. “Now the question is whether Representative Rangel will resign or endure a public trial that promises to be filled with detailed and undoubtedly embarrassing revelations of wrongdoing. Representative Rangel has toughed it out as long as he could, the time clearly has come for him to resign. He can no longer effectively represent the citizens of New York.”
In his Harlem district, where he remains popular, calls for Rangel’s resignation from the House may not carry much political weight.
A concern for Democrats
Still, Rangel’s political and perhaps legal troubles are bad news for majority Democrats working to lose as few seats as possible in the November election. Rangel has long been a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) of California.
Last year, another ethics watchdog group, the Sunlight Foundation, examined Rangel’s financial record going back to 1978, the first year House members were required to detail their personal finances. The group “found 28 instances in which he failed to report acquiring, owning, or disposing of assets.”
“Assets worth between $239,026 and $831,000 appear or disappear with no disclosure of when they were acquired, how long they were held, or when they were sold, as the operative House rules at the time required,” the Sunlight Foundation reported.
Over the years, both parties have suffered political embarrassment – and each has lost its House majority – because of corruption scandals.
The last such case in which a member was expelled from Congress involved Rep. James Traficant (D) of Ohio. Mr. Traficant, who was charged with taking bribes and filing false tax returns, served a seven-year sentence. In a bid to return to Congress this year, Traficant failed to get enough valid petition signatures to get on this fall’s ballot.
Rangel recently announced a bid for a 21st term. One of his Sept. 14 primary opponents is Adam Clayton Powell IV, son of the former congressman – himself the focus of political scandal – whom Rangel defeated in 1970.
web page
I posted this to just add to my point. Rangel was constantly on TV bashing Bush and the Republicans. I remember him distinctly commenting on the culture of corruption.
He is also a prime example of the need for term limits. Also, I agree with Phil, it's both parties, so the finger pointing should stop on both sides. They have the nerve to have an "ethics" committee.
Last edited by eryze19akaBT58; 07/22/10 08:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,861
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,861 |
Only with respect to voting in accordance with the party position.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Would anyone outside of media agitators have the nerve to declare that either party has any real integrity? And despite this knowledge ... we take sides and vote for one of them. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Whatever happened to the Obama we saw in 2008? The one that touted bipartisanship and a new different kind of politics?
The Republicans happened.
The Republicans continually vote "No", "No", "No" on everything that comes before Congress. The only thing they are willing to say "Yes" to is their pay raises.
Obama has reached across the isle and many of the bills he has proposed have been changed after making concessions to the Republicans to get the bills passed. After the bills have had concessions made for the Republicans, the Republicans (sorry, I should say the Party of No) votes - you guessed it - "No".
Obama is trying to be bipartisan. The fact is though, that Republicans don't want anything. They are nihilists. Even after getting provisions they want into bills, they continue to vote "No".
So, if you want something to remember.
Teabaggers & Republicans = Nihilists
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,887
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,887 |
Quote:
Would anyone outside of media agitators have the nerve to declare that either party has any real integrity?
And despite this knowledge ... we take sides and vote for one of them.
You and I may fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, but I couldn't agree with you more on your post.
Not only do we take sides, we do it so blindly, argue vehemently against the other side, and refuse to see our own side has failed as well.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The Tale of Two Obamas...
|
|
