POLL: Do you Think President Obama is a Partisan Democrat?

[alan1]

And many of us don't want to see bi-partisanship.
For 6 years (Under Mr Bush) both the House and Senate had a Republican majority. It wasn't a majority large enough to actually force anything through congress, therefore, it required bi-partisanship to accomplish anything.
Look at what we ended up with. 2 wars, and and the largest deficit spending in the history of the nation. That's what bi-partisanship gets you.

your assertion is incorrect. for six years the repubs put NOTHING up for a vote if it required a single democratic vote to pass.

That said, the dems were wimps who were afraid to be called "soft on terrorism" and should have filibustered every time the repubs acted insane...like invading Iraq or passing the "patriot act".

Don't ignore all the spending that resulted in the largest deficit in the history of the US.
Mrs Clinton also stood on the floor of the Senate and gave a very impassioned speech about supporting Mr Bush and his efforts to go to war with Iraq.
Nothing passed without bi-partisanship for those 6 years and you know it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

All presidents are partisan. Duh.

When's the last time a president said "Ya know, the position of my party is X, but dog-goneit, I'm just gonna do Y instead".

 

[Oddball]

Missed the first six years of the Bush administration, huh??

 

[RadiomanATL]

Missed the first six years of the Bush administration, huh??

Nope, those were the positions of his party.

Just goes to show how far the Republicans have strayed from their conservative roots.

 

[Oddball]

They weren't the positions of his party when it was Bubba Clinton with all the stroke.

 

[oreo]

I really don't believe Obama is a partisan democrat--he is however--a partisan liberal--with I believe a socialist agenda.

I really don't believe Obama represents average democrats. Most democrats are more conservative in their political ideology.

That probably has something to do with his poll numbers plummeting.

 

[Xenophon]

BO is as paristan as they come, and he's never been anything but that.

He used to claim he 'reached accross the isle' while in the senate, if he ever did, it was to give the finger to the GoP.

He will beatout cimptoid as the most polarizing president in US history.

 

[WillowTree]

He is a marxist. I've said it from the beginning, he is a marxist.

 

[editec]

Of course he's a partisan Democrat.

He's currently the highest ranking elected official who is a Dem.

What else could he be?

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

"I'm a party man first and foremost. I don't know what party I belong to, but whichever one it is, I fully believe in it."

- attributed to Huey Long

Hope that answers your question.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm still surprised he only has one vote for non-partisan....i know a lot of obama fans come in here.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Goofy question....

sort of....


I think he is a lazy self centered jackass who has turned the democratic party into himself.

It is an unfortunate tendency for Democrats to meekly follow Great Leaders and drink cool aid. 0ama is just once more example of men who have managed to make intelligent people dishonest because they lost the difference between a man and their goals.

 

[editec]

I'm still surprised he only has one vote for non-partisan....i know a lot of obama fans come in here.

Why are you surprised?

Even if we like Obama, asking us if the highest ranking elected officer who ran on a party ticket is partisan is dumb beyond words.

Of course he's a partisan of the Democratic Party.

They put him in the Oval Office.

 

[chanel]

Obama was elected promising to "change" the culture of Washington As a junior senator with very little experience he was incredibly naïve. McCain knew better. He's been there a long time and was not going to make promises he couldn't deliver. Obama is in way over his head.

A Chinese newspaper touted Obamas "Marxist policies" Considering we may all need to learn Mandarin soon, I think they may know what they're talking about.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm still surprised he only has one vote for non-partisan....i know a lot of obama fans come in here.

Why are you surprised?

Even if we like Obama, asking us if the highest ranking elected officer who ran on a party ticket is partisan is dumb beyond words.

Of course he's a partisan of the Democratic Party.

They put him in the Oval Office.

some of the obama fans seem blinded by his "superstardome" and I figured they would just blindly vote non-partisan.

He did campaign as if he was going to be bi-partisan, he even said he would do it in his inaguaration, yet he didn't do it at all.

As other people said already the "I WON" and "WE WON SO WE WRITE THE LAWS" business was very counter productive to involving both sides on all the issues.

I guess its a good thing for republicans IF all the stuff he has already done fails, then they can say it was all his fault. Cheezy but true.

 

[Newby]

And many of us don't want to see bi-partisanship.
For 6 years (Under Mr Bush) both the House and Senate had a Republican majority. It wasn't a majority large enough to actually force anything through congress, therefore, it required bi-partisanship to accomplish anything.
Look at what we ended up with. 2 wars, and and the largest deficit spending in the history of the nation. That's what bi-partisanship gets you.

your assertion is incorrect. for six years the repubs put NOTHING up for a vote if it required a single democratic vote to pass.

That said, the dems were wimps who were afraid to be called "soft on terrorism" and should have filibustered every time the repubs acted insane...like invading Iraq or passing the "patriot act".

The "patriot act" is still there, despite a Democrat administration and a Democrat super majority in Congress. Guess they don't mind it so much, huh?

 

[Oddball]

And many of us don't want to see bi-partisanship.
For 6 years (Under Mr Bush) both the House and Senate had a Republican majority. It wasn't a majority large enough to actually force anything through congress, therefore, it required bi-partisanship to accomplish anything.
Look at what we ended up with. 2 wars, and and the largest deficit spending in the history of the nation. That's what bi-partisanship gets you.

your assertion is incorrect. for six years the repubs put NOTHING up for a vote if it required a single democratic vote to pass.

That said, the dems were wimps who were afraid to be called "soft on terrorism" and should have filibustered every time the repubs acted insane...like invading Iraq or passing the "patriot act".

That's the stupidest hack-in-the-box shit I've seen you post, and brother that covers some ground!!

The USAPATRIOT act passed the Senate on a 98-1 vote.

It was Senate DEMOCRATS who demanded SECOND debate on invading Iraq, in advance of the 2004 mid-terms (wile polling was in favor of it) so they could be the party of "me too".

 

[MaggieMae]

This thread was inspired by this poll i found Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

Take the poll and see if we in the forum poll the same as rasmussen's likely voter polls


My Opinion is that he has not really tried to be a non-partisan president, I don't blame him really as his party has total domination of the legislative branch. If I was president and had control of congress I'd be acting the same way, I'd just be doing totally different stuff

It isn't a yes or no question, which is why a poll is dumb. Any president hopes to be bipartisan. After all, that's the way the Constitution is set up. It is NOT, however, set up for party-first gridlock. I think Obama honestly thought he could break that trend, but apparently he was wrong.

 

[MaggieMae]

He is a Marxist. You should have added a third category.

How so? What has he, as POTUS, nationalized thus far? And please don't say financial institutions or the auto industry because you would be wrong. What has he attempted to nationalized without legislative input?

 

[Navy1960]

When I hear all this retro-active talk of how evil the republicans were in the last eight years I often wonder if there even was a democrat party at times. However a few gentle reminders might be in order here. As can be seen from above, it would seem more than a few democrats voted with the mean old republicans on the USPA.


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, floor speech on A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. October 10, 2002

That from our current Sec. of State

In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat".[42] He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."

That from our current Vice President

It's an impressive achievement and in conversations with US personnel there all of them felt a genuine sense of progress after this most recent election. The feeling was that there was a great opportunity for the first time in sometime to create a national unity government that actually had some claim of legitimacy with the Iraqi people.

I had a meeting then with Ambassador Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, who discussed the meaning of the most recent election. His belief is that there is an opportunity to create a government that unifies Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, but that it's not going to be easy. That the election in and of itself doesn't create that unity. In fact the election was largely along sectarian lines. But that hopefully there is a recognition on the part of the leadership in all these various factions that recognizes a unified Iraq is better than the alternative, regardless of how difficult it is. And overall I was impressed with the work that he was doing.

This from our President

The bottom line here is that Obama is a product of the Chicago machine and also is deeply indoctrinated in a belief system that has marxist leanings at the very least. So it's not surprising then that the label of partisan can be attached to him. In fact in a lot of way's one can make a case that this president is prehaps the most partisan president this nation has ever elected. His belief system is a principle based belief system that is built around ideals that are supported by the likes of Marx,labor union organizers, and others.