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

[garyd]

That's usually the first sign that you've got a clue. Government is a necessary evil made necessary almost entirely by man's own cupidity, stupidity, and avarice. Those who give it too free a hand become it's slaves.

 

[MaggieMae]

You probably could but almost no one goes and looks. The chief purpose of earmarks is to buy votes back home.

It is what it is. Members of the House are elected to do just that--represent their district's constituency. If they're able to "bring home some bacon" it just means they're doing their job.

 

[MaggieMae]

But the still dont have to debate the merits of the earmark. Yes its easier to find who it was that put the earmark in the bills but they can still ram em in there with no debate.

They do if another congressperson calls him/her out on the floor about it. In fact, since the start of this session, that's just about all the Republicans have done. Remember how none of them "read" the Stimulus Bill? Funny that they got to read the parts they didn't like and could grandstand on C-Span about it, even making some stuff up if it meant the camera got pointed at them.

 

[garyd]

What did they make up and provide proof that they did.

 

[DiveCon]

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".

now this is just stupid
the dems controled the senate when the vote on Iraq happened

 

[DiveCon]

You sound like the republicans circa 2005

How could the Democrats have proposed alternatives or made compromises when they were shut out of all the key committee meetings? The GOP doesn't have that excuse this time...

I heard Jeff Flake on C-Span this morning trying to sell that point against the Democrats. I don't usually try to call in to that program, and wasn't successful when I tried this time. But had I gotten through I would have simply asked Flake (how appropriate) if he really thought Dems restriction of amendments by Republicans was something *new*? And I would have added that some of us didn't sleep all through 2000 though 2006 and are fully aware that the Republican majority pulled the same crap, only worse. At least the Democrats are allowing SOME amendments, just not the flood of them which would have created a back-door filibuster on many issues.

then you are too fucking stupid because the dems controled the senate from 2001 to 2003

 

[DiveCon]

Thanks for the link Maggie.

I do understand earmarks and bailouts very well. I actually have an education in economics with a BBS from the Isenburg School of Management at Amherst.

My problem is I dont approve of earmarks being put into bills for ANY reason. I think that if an earmark is legitimate then the congress should have to propose the spending for that earmark seperately and debate it. They should NOT be allowed to just stuff pet projects into bills in an effort to garner support from certain members of congress. That, IMO, destroys the intent of the process and destroys the checks and balances on abuses in the spending of our hard earned tax money.

I think you may feel differently about this subject, hence the reason we dont feel the same way about things here.

thats my opinion on earmarks also

 

[DiveCon]

Thanks for the link Maggie.

I do understand earmarks and bailouts very well. I actually have an education in economics with a BBS from the Isenburg School of Management at Amherst.

My problem is I dont approve of earmarks being put into bills for ANY reason. I think that if an earmark is legitimate then the congress should have to propose the spending for that earmark seperately and debate it. They should NOT be allowed to just stuff pet projects into bills in an effort to garner support from certain members of congress. That, IMO, destroys the intent of the process and destroys the checks and balances on abuses in the spending of our hard earned tax money.

I think you may feel differently about this subject, hence the reason we dont feel the same way about things here.

The reason they are earmarked is because Congress does not have the time to take up each one individually as a separate bill. And that's no one's fault except historically their own, by making the process so long and drawn out. Rules need to be streamlined for how to get a bill through congress much faster, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Perhaps taking it off national television would be a start. There's far too much grandstanding.

then they do things that few people ever find out about and arent on the record with them saying it
since they can unilaterally amend their remarks for the congressional record

 

[DiveCon]

Oh about like Bush treated his opposition for eight years....

actually, thats not true
Bush tried many times to get in good with the dems
hell Teddy Kennedy wrote the NCLB thing
then the medicare prescription bill had massive dem support
and every time Bush stuck his hand out, they cut it off
sorry, but conservatives got PISSED at Bush for giving in to so many dem liberal demands

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh about like Bush treated his opposition for eight years....

actually, thats not true
Bush tried many times to get in good with the dems
hell Teddy Kennedy wrote the NCLB thing
then the medicare prescription bill had massive dem support
and every time Bush stuck his hand out, they cut it off
sorry, but conservatives got PISSED at Bush for giving in to so many dem liberal demands

That's true, if Bush had the same smooth talking ability Obama has they would have listened more and he would have been able to appease more of the cons as well. The only reason Obama 'seems' non-partisan to his loyal 'fans' is because he has a silver tongue, he's still not really listening to anyone but himself.

 

[DiveCon]

Oh about like Bush treated his opposition for eight years....

actually, thats not true
Bush tried many times to get in good with the dems
hell Teddy Kennedy wrote the NCLB thing
then the medicare prescription bill had massive dem support
and every time Bush stuck his hand out, they cut it off
sorry, but conservatives got PISSED at Bush for giving in to so many dem liberal demands

That's true, if Bush had the same smooth talking ability Obama has they would have listened more and he would have been able to appease more of the cons as well. The only reason Obama 'seems' non-partisan to his loyal 'fans' is because he has a silver tongue, he's still not really listening to anyone but himself.

in other words, Bush's poor speaking skills kept him from communicating that he WAS trying to be bipartisan, and Obama's skills are allowing him to NOT be

 

[KittenKoder]

actually, thats not true
Bush tried many times to get in good with the dems
hell Teddy Kennedy wrote the NCLB thing
then the medicare prescription bill had massive dem support
and every time Bush stuck his hand out, they cut it off
sorry, but conservatives got PISSED at Bush for giving in to so many dem liberal demands

That's true, if Bush had the same smooth talking ability Obama has they would have listened more and he would have been able to appease more of the cons as well. The only reason Obama 'seems' non-partisan to his loyal 'fans' is because he has a silver tongue, he's still not really listening to anyone but himself.

in other words, Bush's poor speaking skills kept him from communicating that he WAS trying to be bipartisan, and Obama's skills are allowing him to NOT be

Pretty much, I say Bush is a moron and Obama is just an ass for a reason.

 

[MaggieMae]

Thanks for the link Maggie.

I do understand earmarks and bailouts very well. I actually have an education in economics with a BBS from the Isenburg School of Management at Amherst.

My problem is I dont approve of earmarks being put into bills for ANY reason. I think that if an earmark is legitimate then the congress should have to propose the spending for that earmark seperately and debate it. They should NOT be allowed to just stuff pet projects into bills in an effort to garner support from certain members of congress. That, IMO, destroys the intent of the process and destroys the checks and balances on abuses in the spending of our hard earned tax money.

I think you may feel differently about this subject, hence the reason we dont feel the same way about things here.

The reason they are earmarked is because Congress does not have the time to take up each one individually as a separate bill. And that's no one's fault except historically their own, by making the process so long and drawn out. Rules need to be streamlined for how to get a bill through congress much faster, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Perhaps taking it off national television would be a start. There's far too much grandstanding.

then they do things that few people ever find out about and arent on the record with them saying it
since they can unilaterally amend their remarks for the congressional record

True. The best way still to track earmarks is via Citizens Against Government Waste, which bears checking into every now and then.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh about like Bush treated his opposition for eight years....

actually, thats not true
Bush tried many times to get in good with the dems
hell Teddy Kennedy wrote the NCLB thing
then the medicare prescription bill had massive dem support
and every time Bush stuck his hand out, they cut it off
sorry, but conservatives got PISSED at Bush for giving in to so many dem liberal demands

I just love revisionist history. The conservatives started getting pissed at Bush when they realized how unpopular his spending had become and began getting nervous about the next election.

 

[MaggieMae]

actually, thats not true
Bush tried many times to get in good with the dems
hell Teddy Kennedy wrote the NCLB thing
then the medicare prescription bill had massive dem support
and every time Bush stuck his hand out, they cut it off
sorry, but conservatives got PISSED at Bush for giving in to so many dem liberal demands

That's true, if Bush had the same smooth talking ability Obama has they would have listened more and he would have been able to appease more of the cons as well. The only reason Obama 'seems' non-partisan to his loyal 'fans' is because he has a silver tongue, he's still not really listening to anyone but himself.

in other words, Bush's poor speaking skills kept him from communicating that he WAS trying to be bipartisan, and Obama's skills are allowing him to NOT be

Giving him credit where due, I believe Bush wanted to be bipartisan and started out that way. Then, after 911, Cheney made all the rules which was a piece of cake because everybody was scared shitless. Karl Rove then made sure that with that kind of popularity for his guy, it would be beneficial to maintain the momentum to assure "Republicans for life" by his behind-the-scenes politicking. They BOTH kept GWB so tightly enclosed in a bubble that Bush didn't realize what they were doing.

 

[Navy1960]

Actually Maggie, I became less of a fan of Bush the day he hired Donald Rumsfeld at DoD and not for the reasons you might think or the popular opinions of the anti-war crowd. In fact DoD was and still is so wholly mismanaged that the real people that suffer from it's ineptness at the top are the warfighters themselves. For years this nation committed itself to battle , with the attitude of fighting wars on the cheap or with the motto of "less is best". I don't want to turn this thread into something it is not, but will simply say this, take for example the F-22 program. You have a congress that ran around thumping its chest that they saved the taxpayers by killing this nations only air superiority fighters and putting out of work 95,000 americans in 45 states and at the same time approved billions for airlift that the DoD as said it does not need and does not want and is over capacity. In Rumsfeld time they committed to battle and at the same time began closing bases, shutting down programs, and killed the F-117 why? because the F-22 was supposed to replace it, by the way, the cost on shutting it down was around a billion dollars with about 15 years of serive life left in the F-117. So no, you won't find me beating the drum on spnding policies which I find are frequently misguided. If you really want to see Govt. lunacy in action just do a google search on the history of the Air Force Tanker. So far the Govt. as spent 6 billion dollars on that in the last 15 years and have ZERO tankers to show for it.

 

[Liability]

Do you Think President Obama is a Partisan Democrat?

RELATED POLL COMING SOON:


Do you Think the Pope is a Catholic?

 

[EriktheRed]

Actually Maggie, I became less of a fan of Bush the day he hired Donald Rumsfeld at DoD and not for the reasons you might think or the popular opinions of the anti-war crowd. In fact DoD was and still is so wholly mismanaged that the real people that suffer from it's ineptness at the top are the warfighters themselves. For years this nation committed itself to battle , with the attitude of fighting wars on the cheap or with the motto of "less is best". I don't want to turn this thread into something it is not, but will simply say this, take for example the F-22 program. You have a congress that ran around thumping its chest that they saved the taxpayers by killing this nations only air superiority fighters and putting out of work 95,000 americans in 45 states and at the same time approved billions for airlift that the DoD as said it does not need and does not want and is over capacity. In Rumsfeld time they committed to battle and at the same time began closing bases, shutting down programs, and killed the F-117 why? because the F-22 was supposed to replace it, by the way, the cost on shutting it down was around a billion dollars with about 15 years of serive life left in the F-117. So no, you won't find me beating the drum on spnding policies which I find are frequently misguided. If you really want to see Govt. lunacy in action just do a google search on the history of the Air Force Tanker. So far the Govt. as spent 6 billion dollars on that in the last 15 years and have ZERO tankers to show for it.

Well, in somewhat-related vein, what do you think of the increased outsourcing to private firms of things all branches of the military used to do themselves, like running chow halls?

 

[DiveCon]

Oh about like Bush treated his opposition for eight years....

actually, thats not true
Bush tried many times to get in good with the dems
hell Teddy Kennedy wrote the NCLB thing
then the medicare prescription bill had massive dem support
and every time Bush stuck his hand out, they cut it off
sorry, but conservatives got PISSED at Bush for giving in to so many dem liberal demands

I just love revisionist history. The conservatives started getting pissed at Bush when they realized how unpopular his spending had become and began getting nervous about the next election.

wrong, THAT is revisionist

 

[garyd]

Actually dive that is exactly what I was saying. Obama should treat the opposition at least as well a Bush did. Won't happen though. The real haters are all on the left.