He's a Divider. Not A Uniter

[WillowTree]

Actually, I don't.

My response was simply meant to point out the hypocrisy of the OP for blaming Mr Obama for a lack of Bipartisanship when the opposition has been so adamantly and publicly partisan.

I wasn't even saying that the Democrats had been particularly bipartisan in their efforts, just that the Republicans had been over the top in intentionally showing that they were specifically not going to be Bipartisan.

you need to either shit or get the hell off the pot. LWC,,, you are starting to look foolish.

I'm not the one who started the mudslinging thread we are currently posting in, now am I?

mudslinging?? what part of he's a uniter would you care to expound upon.

 

[rdean]

The Republicans have already taken their stand - which is not to budge or reconcile one iota.

Why bother tamping down the rhetoric?


Much as I hate to say it - I think rhetoric may be the right tactic at this time.

The Republicans have shown on multiple occasions that they are willing to work with Democrats to better the country.

It be nice if Democrats actually tried to though.

....

 

[Coyote]

What i've seen, basically:

- Democrats gain in both the house and Senate and win the presidency.
- Obama takes office with an ambitious agenda and a congress right behind him.
- They come in and start out hot and heavy legislation, but it was little more than "wanna sign this piece of paper pledging your support for our cause?"

I agree up to this third point.

I think the Democrats won the House and Congress, and the Presidencyn and at once assumed the same arrogantly broad "mandate" that the Republicans assumed before them.

I don't think Obama came in with quite that "mandate". I think he came in with a genuine desire for bipartisanship, but hit the wall of overwhelming polarization and partisanship both with the Republicans and with his own party. Folks are saying that there was no "compromising" with the President - well hell, he dropped the public option - a huge thing to drop - one that cost the support of part of his own party in an effort to make it more palatable to the Republicans.

- Most republicans don't want to because it's too much for them to support.

Is it that - or is it a stubborn refusal to work with anything Obama proposes? Come on - be honest here. Perhaps it's a bit of both. I think there is genuine concern on the part of the Republicans as to the enormity and cost of the bill. However - that doesn't jive with their refusal to sign on to anything - even a modest jobs bill.

- Democrats say "fine, we don't need you anyway."
- Republicans become further disenfranchised and become less supportive.

Probably true...but then, the Republicans had the chance to influence the bill and make it more palatable. They chose to forgo that and go for an all or nothing strategy didn't they?

I'm happy to see that the republicans might actually have some fiscal conservativeness left in them, so i'm personally happy to see them act the way they did. Maybe i wouldn't feel so bad about a republican vote in 2010. I don't really blame the democrats for acting the way they did though. They got some major victories in the 2008 elections so they earned the opportunity to pursue the agenda they wanted to, it was just too far left for the republicans to support and the democrats didn't want to nor did they have to bring it right enough for them. They both basically said "**** you" and that's where we are today.

That last sentance...yes, I agree - but I seperate Obama from the main of his party - whom he has also pissed off by attempting to take a middleground. Perhaps I am most disturbed by all this because I am also a "middle ground" sort of person. I did not believe that the Republican wins of the past years meant the sort of unlimited mandate (or "political capital") for a broad conservative agenda as was assumed. Nor do I believe that the Democratic wins mean public acceptance of a broad liberal agenda either. I think both parties are unable to learn from their mistakes.

Maybe I am too cynical and disenchanted - but I am a liberal, and an independent.

If the tables were turned and the republicans came in with visions of huge tax cuts and slashing of government programs then i wouldn't blame the democrats for not wanting to go along with that as that's not what they stand for.

At what point, and how - do we break this partisan gridlock and actually accomplish some good? Do any of them care beyond party talking points?

 

[Coyote]

I am curious....what makes you think that the President is being truthful when he says he has had an open door?

Why are you so sure the Republicans are lying?

Does it not concern you that he lied about things like CSPAN, back room deals (Unions for example), and moist doctyors are on board (AMA represents only 17% of doctors).....yet you easily believe that his door was open to republicans all along?

Hey...me? I am skeptical about what any politician says....

But you believe what Obama says hands down?

Why?

Actually, I don't.

My response was simply meant to point out the hypocrisy of the OP for blaming Mr Obama for a lack of Bipartisanship when the opposition has been so adamantly and publicly partisan.

I wasn't even saying that the Democrats had been particularly bipartisan in their efforts, just that the Republicans had been over the top in intentionally showing that they were specifically not going to be Bipartisan.

Well, you got us there Sparky.. the left sure worked with GWB for 8 years, you know, undercutting him at every turn, calling him everything from a liar to "Satan".

You probably believe your own bullshit.

An eye for an eye til everyone is blind....


Isn't this along the lines of ....bbbbbbbbut BOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHHHH

 

[hboats]

I don't think Obama came in with quite that "mandate". I think he came in with a genuine desire for bipartisanship, but hit the wall of overwhelming polarization and partisanship both with the Republicans and with his own party. Folks are saying that there was no "compromising" with the President - well hell, he dropped the public option - a huge thing to drop - one that cost the support of part of his own party in an effort to make it more palatable to the Republicans.

It's kinda hard for me to agree with that when ALL of the decision making on the health care reform bill was done behind CLOSED DOORS without the input of ONE Republican representative until it was basically dead. THEN Obama had to look like he wanted their input so he stages this "summit" and basically shuts the door in a public forum on any and all Republican discussion on the bill. That's not bipartisan.

Rick

 

[George Costanza]

The Republicans have shown on multiple occasions that they are willing to work with Democrats to better the country.

Yes - but always on their terms.

 

[Coyote]

yep,, they are Republican Congressman and Physicians,, white too, so they don't mean shit to obama and the democrats.

You literally tried to use a bunch of Republican congressman a a source to prove that partisanship on the healthcare bill is Obama's fault, and when called on it, you just keep right on trucking...

Wow. Well, nobody ever accused you of not having brass balls Willow.

at least I got some balls, you misplaced yours a long time ago.. all you have now are empty bags.

can't resist......sure your not confusing teabags with balls?

 

[Claudette]

To be fair, the democrats were never too interested in bipartisanship when Obama took office, and it's basically devolved into both parties essentially holding the "my way or the high way" attitude.

I think Obama was seriously interested in bipartisanship. I do not think the Democrats in Congress were however. It just made the partisan stances stronger.

I think some of the Democrats where interested in bipartisanship. I do not agree AT ALL that Obama was. Obama was only interested in going down in history as the President who got "health care reform" passed. And it really didn't matter to him at what cost to the American people. He just wanted it passed, and to hell with bipartisanship.

Rick

I totally agree.

OL'BO has only one thing on his mind.

His Agenda. His changes for this country.

I don't think he gives a rats ass about anything but that.

I just wonder where his next efforts will land us???

 

[hboats]

I think Obama was seriously interested in bipartisanship. I do not think the Democrats in Congress were however. It just made the partisan stances stronger.

I think some of the Democrats where interested in bipartisanship. I do not agree AT ALL that Obama was. Obama was only interested in going down in history as the President who got "health care reform" passed. And it really didn't matter to him at what cost to the American people. He just wanted it passed, and to hell with bipartisanship.

Rick

I totally agree.

OL'BO has only one think on his mind. His Agenda. I don't think he gives a rats ass about anything but that.

I just wonder where his next efforts will land us???

Well, we already know two of his upcoming efforts, Cap and Trade tax and making all illegals currently residing in the U.S. legal. Cap and Trade is just scary as hell.

Rick

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This President is a Marxist trained Community Organizer. He was trained on Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals.' Division & Confrontation are key elements in Alinsky's rules. This President along with Pelosi & Reid have fostered hate & division unlike anything i've ever seen. It is the Marxist way though. It is very sad but it is what it is.