• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama's Problem

A

Anonymous

Guest
Why Didn't Obama Change Washington?

In addition to campaigning on specific policy issues, such as ending the war in Iraq (done) and passing a more-or-less universal health-care bill (done), in 2008, Barack Obama promised to end the partisan bickering in Washington. At that he failed. Both sides agree on that but their explanations are completely different Democrats say that on Jan. 20, 2009 at noon (or maybe before that), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made his now-famous decision that his top legislative priority was to make sure Obama would be a one-term President. As a consequence, Senate Republicans did everything they could to block Obama at every turn.


Republicans have a different explanation. They say Obama just went ahead and tried to carry out his program without taking their wishes into consideration and this caused the emnity. However, it is hard to see how this is true. The health-care plan, for example, is a virtual copy of the plan the very conservative Heritage Foundation put forward starting in 1989 and which the Republicans have been pushing for over 20 years. This is the plan Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts. Many in Obama's party were angry with him for adopting the Republican plan instead of a system more like the Canadian single-payer system. The truth is, it is unlikely anything Obama could have done would have reduced the amount of partisanship in Washington.

The core problem is modern technology. Through polling, microtargeting, and other campaign techniques, the Democrats try to position themselves just far enough to the right that they can get 50.1% of the vote and the Republicans position themselves just far enough to the left to get 50.1%. It doesn't always work, but campaign gurus like Democrat David Axelrod and Republican Karl Rove aim for this, despite what some of their party members may be yelling. The net result is that the country is pretty evenly divided, each party thnking that God is on its side, and politics has become war. It wasn't always this way. During the Eisenhower administration the parties got along just fine but that era is long gone.

If Mitt Romney is elected President, he will certainly make a plea that we need to overcome partisanship and all work together. But with memories of Republican obstruction so fresh in the minds of the Democrats, it remains to be seen whether they would cooperate if the situation arises.

Interesting- especially if you have followed/studied the Health Care Issue and see like the author says that a major part of Obamacare has been the core plan of the Repub Healthcare plan going back til at least 1976 when Nixon came out with an employer "mandate" plan...In fact when GW campaigned with Health Care reform as his #1 issue, I expected this would be the plan he would put forward- and one of the main reasons I supported him... Instead he decided invading nations was more important- and did nothing on healthcare insurance.. :(

And like the writer says- the Repub party has changed drastically...
The parties new radicalism and refusal to work bipartisanly for what is best for the country definitely moved me further away from their tent....
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Why Didn't Obama Change Washington?

In addition to campaigning on specific policy issues, such as ending the war in Iraq (done) and passing a more-or-less universal health-care bill (done), in 2008, Barack Obama promised to end the partisan bickering in Washington. At that he failed. Both sides agree on that but their explanations are completely different Democrats say that on Jan. 20, 2009 at noon (or maybe before that), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made his now-famous decision that his top legislative priority was to make sure Obama would be a one-term President. As a consequence, Senate Republicans did everything they could to block Obama at every turn.


Republicans have a different explanation. They say Obama just went ahead and tried to carry out his program without taking their wishes into consideration and this caused the emnity. However, it is hard to see how this is true. The health-care plan, for example, is a virtual copy of the plan the very conservative Heritage Foundation put forward starting in 1989 and which the Republicans have been pushing for over 20 years. This is the plan Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts. Many in Obama's party were angry with him for adopting the Republican plan instead of a system more like the Canadian single-payer system. The truth is, it is unlikely anything Obama could have done would have reduced the amount of partisanship in Washington.

The core problem is modern technology. Through polling, microtargeting, and other campaign techniques, the Democrats try to position themselves just far enough to the right that they can get 50.1% of the vote and the Republicans position themselves just far enough to the left to get 50.1%. It doesn't always work, but campaign gurus like Democrat David Axelrod and Republican Karl Rove aim for this, despite what some of their party members may be yelling. The net result is that the country is pretty evenly divided, each party thnking that God is on its side, and politics has become war. It wasn't always this way. During the Eisenhower administration the parties got along just fine but that era is long gone.

If Mitt Romney is elected President, he will certainly make a plea that we need to overcome partisanship and all work together. But with memories of Republican obstruction so fresh in the minds of the Democrats, it remains to be seen whether they would cooperate if the situation arises.

Interesting- especially if you have followed/studied the Health Care Issue and see like the author says that a major part of Obamacare has been the core plan of the Repub Healthcare plan going back til at least 1976 when Nixon came out with an employer "mandate" plan...In fact when GW campaigned with Health Care reform as his #1 issue, I expected this would be the plan he would put forward... Instead he decided invading nations was more important- and did nothing on healthcare insurance.. :(

And like the writer says- the Repub party has changed drastically...
The parties new radicalism and refusal to work bipartisanly for what is best for the country definitely moved me further away from their tent....

Nixon resigned in 1974.

When W. was campaigning in 2000, we hadn't been attacked yet by radical Muslim jihadists, so maybe his priorities changed just a smidge after 3000+ Americans were killed on American soil.

Once again, OWNED.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
dkhead.jpg

deadhorseot.jpg
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
You know oldtimer, the D's and R's shouldn't get along.
They have 2 different party platforms to stand on.
The problem is the RINO Republican's that can't seem to figure out where they stand,they stand for nothing because they do not follow the platform the profess.

The Conservative members of Congress that were elected in 2010 have been doing EXACTLY what the people who elected them sent them there to do- REPRESENT them! obama was having a run away with a D controlled house and senate, we needed some checks and balances and the people spoke and we got some.

Think how high the debt and defecit would be right now if we hadn't got some adults on board in 2010 to slow the spending spree down a little. :shock:

If that is obstruction then bring it on - we need allot more obstruction in DC.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Nixon resigned in 1974.

OOPS-Yep a brainfart by me.. It was 1974 when he asked Congress to implement it...So its been around longer than I was thinking.. :wink:


The Nixon letter to Congress proposing the "MANDATE"...

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Incest has been around a long time too. Just because something has been around a long time (like you), that doesn't make it right.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won” line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.”

But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – including calls to put off tax hikes during the recession. “He rejected that out of hand and said we couldn’t have any hard and fast rules like that,” Cantor said.



well that was on.. "1/23/09"

we can see who set the tone,..

this one from the campaign trail..

Has President Obama‘s tone become increasingly partisan?

Obama had this to say about the GOP joining Democratic efforts for reform: “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

o paraphrase Scott Brown, it’s the people’s car; and you really don’t want the ideological successor to Teddy Kennedy behind the wheel.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Why Didn't Obama Change Washington?

In addition to campaigning on specific policy issues, such as ending the war in Iraq (done) and passing a more-or-less universal health-care bill (done), in 2008, Barack Obama promised to end the partisan bickering in Washington. At that he failed. Both sides agree on that but their explanations are completely different Democrats say that on Jan. 20, 2009 at noon (or maybe before that), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made his now-famous decision that his top legislative priority was to make sure Obama would be a one-term President. As a consequence, Senate Republicans did everything they could to block Obama at every turn.


Republicans have a different explanation. They say Obama just went ahead and tried to carry out his program without taking their wishes into consideration and this caused the emnity. However, it is hard to see how this is true. The health-care plan, for example, is a virtual copy of the plan the very conservative Heritage Foundation put forward starting in 1989 and which the Republicans have been pushing for over 20 years. This is the plan Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts. Many in Obama's party were angry with him for adopting the Republican plan instead of a system more like the Canadian single-payer system. The truth is, it is unlikely anything Obama could have done would have reduced the amount of partisanship in Washington.

The core problem is modern technology. Through polling, microtargeting, and other campaign techniques, the Democrats try to position themselves just far enough to the right that they can get 50.1% of the vote and the Republicans position themselves just far enough to the left to get 50.1%. It doesn't always work, but campaign gurus like Democrat David Axelrod and Republican Karl Rove aim for this, despite what some of their party members may be yelling. The net result is that the country is pretty evenly divided, each party thnking that God is on its side, and politics has become war. It wasn't always this way. During the Eisenhower administration the parties got along just fine but that era is long gone.

If Mitt Romney is elected President, he will certainly make a plea that we need to overcome partisanship and all work together. But with memories of Republican obstruction so fresh in the minds of the Democrats, it remains to be seen whether they would cooperate if the situation arises.

Interesting- especially if you have followed/studied the Health Care Issue and see like the author says that a major part of Obamacare has been the core plan of the Repub Healthcare plan going back til at least 1976 when Nixon came out with an employer "mandate" plan...In fact when GW campaigned with Health Care reform as his #1 issue, I expected this would be the plan he would put forward- and one of the main reasons I supported him... Instead he decided invading nations was more important- and did nothing on healthcare insurance.. :(

And like the writer says- the Repub party has changed drastically...
The parties new radicalism and refusal to work bipartisanly for what is best for the country definitely moved me further away from their tent....

I'm just wondering where this piece came from. Can you provide a link,
OT?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Oldtimer said:
Why Didn't Obama Change Washington?

In addition to campaigning on specific policy issues, such as ending the war in Iraq (done) and passing a more-or-less universal health-care bill (done), in 2008, Barack Obama promised to end the partisan bickering in Washington. At that he failed. Both sides agree on that but their explanations are completely different Democrats say that on Jan. 20, 2009 at noon (or maybe before that), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made his now-famous decision that his top legislative priority was to make sure Obama would be a one-term President. As a consequence, Senate Republicans did everything they could to block Obama at every turn.


Republicans have a different explanation. They say Obama just went ahead and tried to carry out his program without taking their wishes into consideration and this caused the emnity. However, it is hard to see how this is true. The health-care plan, for example, is a virtual copy of the plan the very conservative Heritage Foundation put forward starting in 1989 and which the Republicans have been pushing for over 20 years. This is the plan Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts. Many in Obama's party were angry with him for adopting the Republican plan instead of a system more like the Canadian single-payer system. The truth is, it is unlikely anything Obama could have done would have reduced the amount of partisanship in Washington.

The core problem is modern technology. Through polling, microtargeting, and other campaign techniques, the Democrats try to position themselves just far enough to the right that they can get 50.1% of the vote and the Republicans position themselves just far enough to the left to get 50.1%. It doesn't always work, but campaign gurus like Democrat David Axelrod and Republican Karl Rove aim for this, despite what some of their party members may be yelling. The net result is that the country is pretty evenly divided, each party thnking that God is on its side, and politics has become war. It wasn't always this way. During the Eisenhower administration the parties got along just fine but that era is long gone.

If Mitt Romney is elected President, he will certainly make a plea that we need to overcome partisanship and all work together. But with memories of Republican obstruction so fresh in the minds of the Democrats, it remains to be seen whether they would cooperate if the situation arises.

Interesting- especially if you have followed/studied the Health Care Issue and see like the author says that a major part of Obamacare has been the core plan of the Repub Healthcare plan going back til at least 1976 when Nixon came out with an employer "mandate" plan...In fact when GW campaigned with Health Care reform as his #1 issue, I expected this would be the plan he would put forward- and one of the main reasons I supported him... Instead he decided invading nations was more important- and did nothing on healthcare insurance.. :(

And like the writer says- the Repub party has changed drastically...
The parties new radicalism and refusal to work bipartisanly for what is best for the country definitely moved me further away from their tent....

I'm just wondering where this piece came from. Can you provide a link,
OT?

http://electoral-vote.com/
 

Mike

Well-known member
The parties new radicalism and refusal to work bipartisanly for what is best for the country definitely moved me further away from their tent....

I see. So you get in bed with Thugs & Thieves, not the politicians - but the ordinary street thugs, Jesse & Al, the Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakan, the Chinese, the Radical Muslims, Peggy The Moocher, the Outlaw Bill Ayers, and the rest of the ilk?

Wouldn't it be smarter to look at who you are VOTING WITH, instead of who you are VOTING AGAINST??????????????

Are you really as stupid as you seem? :roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
electoral-vote.com is a liberal website. It is a lot like leftwing media and obama doing their own "fact checking" ...... worthless

You forgot to mention that electoral-vote.com has ties to the sierra club
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
The parties new radicalism and refusal to work bipartisanly for what is best for the country definitely moved me further away from their tent....

I see. So you get in bed with Thugs & Thieves, not the politicians - but the ordinary street thugs, Jesse & Al, the Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakan, the Chinese, the Radical Muslims, Peggy The Moocher, the Outlaw Bill Ayers, and the rest of the ilk?

Wouldn't it be smarter to look at who you are VOTING WITH, instead of who you are VOTING AGAINST??????????????

Are you really as stupid as you seem? :roll:

Nope- not in bed with either cult... Never have been- never will be.... Don't agree with about 1/2 of eithers direction...
I support and/or oppose issues from both cults...

John Huntsman summed up the change with his bringing up of where would we be if we hadn't had progressive Republican Presidents like Lincoln (government backed building transnational railroad- emancipation proclamation) and Ike (interstate highway system)...And up until a few years ago- Repubs were the last to want to go to war- but now they are in the pockets of the military/industrial complex- and flat out warmongers... Old McCain brought that up again with his convention speech where he might as well started singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" again! Now they are the party with the grey haired old men wanting to send the young men off to war nationbuilding... How many young warriors have to die to before they learn they are not going to accomplish anything in these nations....

And this party that used to want to keep its nose out of peoples lives and business's is the one that wants the grey haired old men to pass laws on what individuals can do in their bedrooms or doctors offices.... They don't even want to give a dying person the right to die with dignity... Like Huntsman said- the Repubs of old (pre Ike) were much more Libertarian in their thinking on social issues and keeping their noses out of other folks business...And if they go down again in this years election- that will be one of the reasons...
 

cutterone

Well-known member
OK OT I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and agree that both sides have been wrong. Now in my opinion I believe that Obama is gone in the fall as well as enough senators to change the stronghold of the Dems and I think that most feel the need for real change and a severe cut back in government and get the people's affairs back into their hands. So my question to you is what steps should be taken and how is it established so that it will not go into this direction again under either party? What steps, reforms, and depts should be removed or downsized?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Nope- not in bed with either cult... Never have been- never will be.... Don't agree with about 1/2 of eithers direction...

...

For a guy that spends as much time Fart Checking Obama ( a polite way of saying azz kissing :wink: ) verse FACT checking to see he is lieing to you, how can you expect us to believe you are not a full fledged Democrat Cultist. Come on Oldtimer when have you ever not defended the direction Obama has taken the US? Better yet when have you ever supported those trying to stop the run away high speed train Obama has buckets you into that has your Grandchildren tied to the tracks of?

:roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
You are a dang liar ot. You come up with the excuse"they are all bad" You are lieing out your teeth, if you thought that you would be condemninmg the left as much as you do the right.
You use the excuse "they all do it" to keep from condemning the leftwingernuts.

And no they don't all do it, that is just a stupid azz liberal trying to tell themselves it is alright to suck up all the lefts dropping and like it.



obama_sheep.jpg
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Looked to me like there were lots of YOUNG people in the audence at the convention oldtimer,,,or were you too drunk to see them :roll: :roll:

Guess you are so far out in left field and chasing butterflys to see what is really happening around you

EH
No wonder obama got elected with uninformed people like you voting :roll:
Fortunatly most are starting to see the fog lift asnd realize how much they were duped to the tune of 16 trillion and counting...


oldtime calmly set down,, put the spiked kool aid on the table, pick up the phine and schedule the brain transplant, get on that is not pickled from all the booze you drink,,,,, :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
cutterone said:
OK OT I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and agree that both sides have been wrong. Now in my opinion I believe that Obama is gone in the fall as well as enough senators to change the stronghold of the Dems and I think that most feel the need for real change and a severe cut back in government and get the people's affairs back into their hands. So my question to you is what steps should be taken and how is it established so that it will not go into this direction again under either party? What steps, reforms, and depts should be removed or downsized?

I'll give you some that Huntsman named that I agree with-- Term Limits- outlaw revolving door between politician/lobbyiest--totally rewrite campaign laws and bring some honesty/openness back to campaigns- do away with Super Pacs- end never ending Presidential campaigns (says 2016 campaign will begin Nov 7th)- a line item veto... Those are things I remember he brought up...

I agree with Repubs/Libertarians on a couple of issues- like reducing/doing away with the EPA and Dept of Education- giving their duties back to the states...I also agree with most of their deregulation over business/individuals-- but one place where I disagree with them and agree with the Dems is the Banking/Lending/Financial industry...As was shown with the Bush Bust, they can't be trusted when not policed...


I disagree with the Dems on many enviro issues- and their welfare programs- but agree with them and the Libertarians on individual rights issues like abortion and homosexual couples rights and think government should stay out of such decisions... I disagree with the Repubs and agree with the Libertarians on an individuals right to die with dignity....If any form of government has to be involved it should be the states..

I agree pretty much with Obamas foreign policy- and keeping our nose out of going whole bore into more wars... His behind the scenes work remind me of Reagans methods...And he's really did a good job on knocking off Taliban and Al Quaeda..
But its time to bring our troops home- we are not going to change those folks..

Make Congress go back to legislating and having to rule- require that they must vote and up or down vote on an appointment within 60 days- or the person is confirmed...

Like I said before I agree with the Obamacare law which has now been called a Dem law-- but I was sold on it years ago when it was a Repub idea and was being promoted by the Repubs in opposition to such Dem ideas as Hillarycare... And after watching so many folks lose everything- or in the alternative go out and stick a gun in their mouth- I'm convinced this country badly needs health care insurance reform...

I'm a great believer in states rights- which I don't think is really being followed by the Repubs or Dems anymore... The Libertarian party follows that the most...

Thats a few things I can think of for starters... Like I said- I support or oppose issues and individuals-- not any cult.....
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Just wondering if you watched any of the RNC, OT. We remarked that
it was great to see so many younger people involved. So I guess I can't
agree with you that the GOP is made up of gray-haired old men. It
was very refreshing to see all those younger GOP voters and participants.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Just wondering if you watched any of the RNC, OT. We remarked that
it was great to see so many younger people involved. So I guess I can't
agree with you that the GOP is made up of gray-haired old men. It
was very refreshing to see all those younger GOP voters and participants.

Yep- a few parts...McCains war mongering speach really made me not want to watch more...
I see Montana got the honor of having the oldest grey haired white man there- Babcock..
 
Top