I think you need to give a few examples of where he should have led in something , but failed , in your opinion , to do so .
Your perspective is not shared by many outside analysts who believe his boldness and vision are hallmarks of his overall presidential strength .
Could it be that you are looking at quite small matters in the context of overall US and International strategy and execution?
BlackCherry, my political opinions are not sufficient reason to accuse anyone of seriously risking or actually harming our economy deliberately only for political partisanship. I would very much resent anyone questioning my patriotism and I will not with good reason question anyone elseÂ’s.
I agree WITH many that our inability to negotiate even some of the lesser differences between ourselves have certainly been to our nationÂ’s serious detriment. But I also wish to believe those that do not compromise are acting on their sincere confidence in the rightness of their positions. TheyÂ’ve determined if they were to compromise, it would be to our nationÂ’s greater detriment.
The general Republican position is that the federal budget deficit is our nationÂ’s primary short and long term economic problem. Democrats agree that the budget is a long term problem but our primary concerns should be our short and medium term economic recovery.
Republicans concern is our social expenditures increasing our federal budget. Democrats believe that reduction of our commitments to social programs are extremely detrimental to our economic recovery and those programs are of net benefit to our nation in all times.
Democrats generally take more populist positions on most economic issues. Republicans are generally proponents of positions adhering to supply side economic policies.
The Tea Party will mount primary challenges against any Republican willing to negotiate and compromise. If they lose a primary election, their own candidates will bleed off Republican votes within the general elections. The Tea Party has been very successful in burning the bridges behind the Republican office holders. They are unable to compromise. ThatÂ’s why the Republican Party is able to strongly influence national policy both when they are the nationÂ’s majority or minority party.
I regret that those strongly opposed to the tea PartyÂ’s positions do not profit from their example. They cast their votes for Democratic candidates regardless of their not sharing mutual or similar commitment to the same political positions. ThatÂ’s why Democrats are too often unable to influence national policy even when theyÂ’re the nationÂ’s majority party.
Senator McConnell made it clear that his primary goal was to make Obama a one term president. He is among those leaders that choose not to compromise. Obama soon explained that this was not simply rhetoric; there would be no possible compromise. For more than six years the Republican office holders could not negotiate (if they wanted to do so). The Democratic Party has been negotiating with itself; (and thus negotiating against itself). ItÂ’s a form of political masturbation.
In my opinion, the Democrats most effective strategy is what Obama had until now has only done when elections were eminent; Obama is fully using the White House’s “bully pulpit”. The Democratic Party missed grand opportunities to keep the federal budget and taxes on the U.S. Senate floor.
Also there's only one day in two years when the majority U.S. Senate Party has an opportunity to require filibusters to hold the senate floor within the entire duration of the filibuster. If senators filibuster, they should be required to publicly and continuously explain why they are preventing the senate from voting upon an act or an appointment.
Respectfully, Supposn
