A Historic Opportunity

I question the timing of the OPs call for bipartisanship.

And the premise that the President has not made efforts for bipartisanship thus far.

The GOPs stance during the past two years has been indisputably obstructionsist.

They have employed the filibuster more than any other session in history...not hyperbole, statistical fact.

The far left has pointedly criticized the President for being too bipartisan.

As far as what the GOP strategy going forward will be??

Jobs? getting things done? Helping the middle class emerge from the worst economic crisis since the great depression?

Let's check with Mitch McConnell, the GOPs leader in the Senate...

McConnell explained that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
www.latimes.com...

Let's check with rep. Boehner, the new GOP speaker of the House..

“This is not a time for compromise"
As for Obama's own agenda, Boehner promised, "We're going to do everything -- and I mean everything we can do -- to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”
www.tnr.com...

Now as far as President Obama's "agenda"...he always knew the first 18 months are when a President can genuinely make a change. He is done with big legislation, he knows this.

The GOP will spend the next 6-12 months looking to repeal Healthcare Reform and look to give big business's and the wealthy tax breaks and sell the public the same disproven story about trickle down economics.

These positions will fill thier coffers for the 2012 elections with the citizens united ruling making it easier than ever to take money from corporations. The money will be spent on negative advertising, which by the way...broke all records this campaign season according to objective observers.

Campaign finance reform? Jobs? Compromise?...nope none have any strategic value.

Sorry if I am feeling a little pessimistic this morning...having just voted for the least of two evils and gotten handed the more corrupt of the two.

Repealing healthcare reform...next 12 months, ending with a Presidential veto and the general public once again screaming WTF!! We need jobs!!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by intrepid

 

Will Obama reach across the aisle? If so will Congress accept that hand?

I'm curious why Obama has to reach across the aisle? Why don't you suggest that the Republicans reach across the aisle?

Because obama, reid and pelosi did everything they could to shut Republicans out of all the key legislation since obama was elected. If obama does not want to be a lame duck for the last 2 years of his (one term) presidency, then he will have to do what Clinton did and abandon his far left arrogance and move back toward the center.

People need to keep in mind the Gallup poll data I recently posted that shows that people identifying themselves as liberal (or so-called progressives) at best were 21% of the population, while people identifying themselves as conservative have always been at least twice that number. The only reason liberals have the power they do is that they have positioned themselves well in academia, the main stream media, and some key judicial appointments. Another note from that data is that the percentage of those identifying themselves as moderate or independent is steadily shrinking with most of the change going to the conservatives. IMO this will turn out to mean that 2008 will be looked back on as the high water mark for liberal/progressives.

Here is the data I referred to:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f233a408b048.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by maybereal11
I question the timing of the OPs call for bipartisanship.

And them premise that the President has not made efforts for bipartisanship thus far.

As I just stated, obama has not made attempts to be be bi-partisan. If yo think so, please name some.

The GOPs stance during the past two years has been indisputably obstructionsist.

Progressive propaganda. Republicans were shut out of all major legislation during obama's term.

They have employed the filibuster more than any other session in history...not hyperbole, statistical fact.

How is it a "fact" when the democrats had a filibuster proof majority of 60 in the senate?

The far left has pointedly criticized the President for being too bipartisan.

The most telling statement of your post. Obama not being bi-partisan at all is considered "too bi-partisan" by the far left.

reply to post by centurion1211


So what are your thoughts on a bipartisan gov't? Good, bad, possible?

reply to post by intrepid


Possible - but only if both sides really mean to try. IF both sides truly learned something from the last several elections, then anything is possible.

All we can do now is wait and see.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I could not disagree more.

Using your own analogy, if the guy elected to drive has promised to drive carefully, but then begins driving dangerously, all the passengers in the car are suddenly in peril of their life. Your analogy of one guy working the gas and another the steering is not apt; it is more like one guy mashing the gas and steering fast while another pulls back on the gas and slows the steering.

No one man, nor one party, has the answers. For any one man or one group to exercise control over a people is the very definition of a dictatorship. We know from history that dictatorships more often than not dissolve into tyranny. Thus, in this country, we try to avoid such tyranny by making the true governors the people. For reasons of practicality, those people elect people to represent their values in the making of the laws and policies of the country. Notice that I said people... not parties.

To decree that the majority should have carte blanche to do as they will is to ignore the rest... and if the majority's intent is misread, it is also to ignore the majority's wishes as well. I voted for Obama in 2008, primarily because I expected him to further education funding, repeal or at least reduce the Patriot Act, provide the transparency and mandatory waiting periods for legislative votes, provide a method for individuals to make timely communications to their representatives (including himself) about such legislation, and because McCain's belief that the President could proceed with the bailouts devoid of Congressional approval was inconsistent with his desire to hold that position.

I did not vote for health insurance reform. I did not wish my cigarette taxes to rise by several thousand percent. I did not want to watch more bailouts occur. I did not want to escalate an Afghani War. Yet, because I voted for one portion of his agenda, it has been assumed I voted for all of it.

I did not, and neither did many of the people of this country in my opinion. Last night's results would seem to bear me out on this. I did not get what I wanted; rather I got what I did not want from Obama.

I voted for him to drive the car to New York. We're now headed to San Diego. Wrong direction. Time to slow him down at least, so maybe I can get to New York faster when someone else gets to drive.

TheRedneck

reply to post by centurion1211

IF both sides truly learned something from the last several elections, then anything is possible.

True enough. But I doubt either has learned anything, nor can they learn anything.

From the movie Avatar: "It is hard to fill a cup which is already full."

From my culture: "If you taught a pig to sing, it would still prefer to grunt."

TheRedneck

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by maybereal11
I question the timing of the OPs call for bipartisanship.

And them premise that the President has not made efforts for bipartisanship thus far.

As I just stated, obama has not made attempts to be be bi-partisan. If yo think so, please name some.

The public option for starters..as well as Financial Reform, Energy, Envirornment...where have you been? In FOX land?

Liberals irked by Obama's compromises
www.washingtontimes.com...

Obama compromises on financial fix : Bottom Line
www.sfgate.com...

Obama Plans Climate Bill Push, Supports Nuclear and Drilling ...
www.treehugger.com...

Emissions deal an example of Obama compromises
articles.sfgate.com...

The GOPs stance during the past two years has been indisputably obstructionsist.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by maybereal11

They have employed the filibuster more than any other session in history...not hyperbole, statistical fact.

How is it a "fact" when the democrats had a filibuster proof majority of 60 in the senate?

AT NO TIME HAVE THE DEMOCRATS HAD A FILIBUSTER PROOF 60 SEATS IN THE SENATE

The fact that you repeat something that is refuted by reality itself speaks to how easy it is to lie to people and how comfortable folks are doing it

Here start with wikipedia...
en.wikipedia.org...

Damn the Country, Obama must fail has been the GOPs public policy for two years..

The GOP have employed the Filibuster in the 111th congress more than any other congress preceeding them in US history.

Not hyperbole, opinion or rhetoric, but facts ...just because FOX doesn't report it, doesn't mean it does not happen...

reply to post by maybereal11


Alan Specter gave the democrats 60 votes in the senate when he switched parties ...

What about healthcare, stimulus, and cap and trade - you know, the really big pieces of legislation?

And wanted: a dem/lib that knows how to disagree with someone without throwing insults. A huge step towards bi-partisanship ...

Won't happen.

Dems think they are doing what is best for America so they dig in.
Republicans think they are doing what is best for America so they dig in.
Either that, or both Republicans and Dems are doing what they are doing in order to get reelected and to hold on to their paychecks and their own power. (that'd be my cynical guess)

What some call 'obstructionist' republicans is just the republicans doing what they think is best for America - which is blocking Obama's bad policies.

If it were Dems blocking bad policies, you'd hear the republicans whine that the dems were 'obstructionists'

Obama has NOT 'reached across the aisle'. Nor have his minions.
And neither have the republicans.

The only way anything will happen good for America is if both the republicans and the dems are elected OUT and a whole new crop of folks, from other parties or from no parties at all, get elected.

Sorry Intrepid. This isn't an historic opportunity. IMHO
An historic opportunity would have been a clean sweep out of both Dems and Republicans.

reply to post by maybereal11

With Arlen Specter's switch (and assuming, as Joe notes below, that Al Franken ever gets sworn in), Barack Obama has the Magic 60 Votes -- and an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have envied.

Karen Tumulty, Time (04/28/2009)

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

With Arlen Specter's switch (and assuming, as Joe notes below, that Al Franken ever gets sworn in), Barack Obama has the Magic 60 Votes -- and an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have envied.

Karen Tumulty, Time (04/28/2009)

TheRedneck

It gave the Democrats 58 votes in the Senate..NOT 60!
en.wikipedia.org...

With 2 independants..
Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman...the man who single handidly squashed the public option.

In 2009, Lieberman is opposed to a "public option" and stated he would side with Republicans and filibuster any attempt to pass major health legislation that includes one.[59] Lieberman confirmed on December 13, 2009 he will not vote for the Senate Health care bill in its current form, reportedly informing Majority Leader Harry Reid directly that he would filibuster any attempt to pass health care with a public option or an expansion of Medicare coverage

en.wikipedia.org...

I understand the political convenience of claiming the Dems had 60 votes, but the facts disagree with the claim...

See above ^^^^^ post by the Redneck ...

Forgot to mention Franken's "win" in Minnesota.

As for the legislation I countered your incorrect post with, does no response signal your remembrance and agreement that the dems back door deals (aka bribes) on healthcare - for one example - made it impossible for Republicans to participate?

Originally posted by centurion1211
See above ^^^^^

Forgot to mention Franken's "win" in Minnesota.

Nope..56 before Franken, 57 after, Arlen made it 58.

Edit to add: It would be easier if folks checked the link I provided giving the breakdown of the Senate by date rather than simply repeating things they think they know.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by centurion1211
See above ^^^^^

Forgot to mention Franken's "win" in Minnesota.

Nope..56 before Franken, 57 after, Arlen made it 58.

Edit to add: It would be easier if folks checked the link I provided giving the breakdown of the Senate by date rather than simply repeating things they think they know.

edit on 3-11-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

Sorry, still trust TIME more than wiki.

Quote from the Time article:

With Arlen Specter's switch (and assuming, as Joe notes below, that Al Franken ever gets sworn in), Barack Obama has the Magic 60 Votes -- and an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have envied.

You should try it, too!

reply to post by centurion1211


Well I didn't want to get into political bickering in this thread because it started off as a quality thread...and then you showed up.


What do you not get about the TWO independents in the Senate at that time? Are you deny that there were TWO independents and that Liberman didn't side with democrats on some issues?

That means..that DEMOCRATS did not have 60 votes. It did mean that Republicans only had 40...but that doesn't mean the Dems had the other 60.


Why is this so hard to understand?

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by centurion1211
See above ^^^^^

Forgot to mention Franken's "win" in Minnesota.

Nope..56 before Franken, 57 after, Arlen made it 58.

Sorry, still trust TIME more than wiki.

You should try it, too!

Wall Street Journal

The Specter announcement, coming on the eve of the president's 100th day in office, secured the Democrats a 59th seat in the Senate, counting two independents

Is the Wall Street Journal lieing to you as well?

How many sources would you like?

One of those independants was Joe Lieberman...

Joe Lieberman: I'll block vote on Harry Reid's plan
www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html

Lieberman Vs. the Democrats - washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com...

Lieberman's Medicare Flip-Flop Leaves Democrats Fuming
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Lieberman plans to campaign for Republicans in 2010.
thinkprogress.org...

get it yet?

Guys, please. Can you post without the back-handed snipes? Remember, be the change you want. Thanks.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Well I didn't want to get into political bickering in this thread because it started off as a quality thread...and then you showed up.

More examples of libs unable to post without insults.

How did the "independents" vote on obamacare?

You all like wiki as a source. Let's see what they have to say on this. I've added comments and underlining for emphasis.

source

Passage in the Senate was temporarily blocked by a filibuster threat by (dem) Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who sided with the Republican minority. Nelson's support for the bill was won after it was amended to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[8] The compromise was derisively referred to as the "Cornhusker Kickback"[19] (and was later repealed by the reconciliation bill). On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a party-line vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with one senator (Jim Bunning) not voting.[20]

A party-line vote of 60-39 ... First Time and now wiki. Hmmm.

reply to post by intrepid


I'll edit my post to be more civil.