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

Rural Dems have beef with Obama

Mike

Well-known member
Pretty clear that Buckwheat doesn't care about rural America. The votes just aren't there.

All the "Brothas" are in the urban areas, along with all the Liberals that vote alongside them.

Any Farmer or Rancher that voted for him should be shot on sight. :lol:
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
Mike, Your comments are silly! And make it very hard to take you seriously at all! :roll: What I get from this article is that ALL of rural America is disconnected from this adminastration. Certainly us folks out west aren't invited to the discussion.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
This attitude is not only the Dems nor the Rep's.

Big cities make the rules


I know here....if it does not happen in ATL....in essence...it didn't happen in the world. :roll: :roll: :roll:


When the ATL stations give the Severe Weather Alerts...the station logo is over our county and we're not even mentioned.

We have to watch the NC/SC stations to see what's happening.
 

VanC

Well-known member
Good article. It would seem that the Democrats that represent rural areas hold some power. Let's hope they use it wisely. This is a perfect example of why the Founding Fathers wanted a senate that would serve as a balance to the House in the first place. The House is overwhelmingly made up of people that represent the bigger cities and the more populated states. The Senate balances this out by having people that represent their entire state, and the more rural states have as much representation as the more populated ones.

Much has been made of the 60 vote filibuster proof Senate. I think it's a bit overblown. It's very difficult to get 60 people, even if they belong to the same party, to vote the same way when they represent different areas of the country. I don't see many senators that come from rural states voting for legislation that will devastate rural communities.

Even Dick Durbin from my state has criticized some of Obama's proposals that would negatively affect agriculture. Yes, he supported Obama and is one of the most liberal senators there is. Yes, most of the money and power in Illinois comes from the Chicago area. But Durbin understands that agriculture, as it is in most states, is a huge part of the Illinois economy, and that he represents the entire state, not just the cities. Don't think too highly of him, but I'll give him that.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:
Pretty clear that Buckwheat doesn't care about rural America. The votes just aren't there.

All the "Brothas" are in the urban areas, along with all the Liberals that vote alongside them.

Any Farmer or Rancher that voted for him should be shot on sight. :lol:

Obama did put in Dudley Butler as head of GIPSA. He is one of the "good guys" and has represented many individuals in some of these agriculture issues in his law firm. He does have a lot to have to work through as the regulatory agency has had no idea of what to do to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. They are in charge of a primary economic law but know little about economics or what the law means, or in properly running a regulatory agency.

I believe all of the people Bush appointed to GIPSA were either incompetent or corrupt. I hope Butler has better luck running it as a regulatory agency it is supposed to be, not the watered down yes man to the ones they were supposed to regulate. Of course some of that can be traced back to paid off politicians.

If Butler can do what I know he is capable of, Obama would have picked a good regulatory head to give back the economic power of producers under the law.

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep Van-- some of the rural Dems really are the power votes now...Like our two Montana Senators- both of who oppose any tampering with gun laws - and who both opposed the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnesty for illegal invaders...They hold the keys for/against any Liberal moves...

Right now with the Obama administration- both have much more influence for Agriculture which has been seen with the M-COOL law- and I think may be seen in the future with USDA in being more producer oriented- and less automatically on the side of the corporate conglomerates...

I agree- The GIPSA appointment does look good- and from the comments coming out of there- we could actually see it work for the producer again....

I don't know what is going to happen with the NAIS Mandatory ID- but at least the USDA didn't just jump on Bush's bandwagon of trying to shove it down our throats- and is taking comments at listening sessions- which I understand are running about 99 to 1 AGAINST....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I listen to you on some issues believe it or not -- such as SUVs and trucks and guns and certainly on the agricultural issues. Obama is the President of all of the U.S. and while it's true that a lot of the thinking of our representatives and appointed senior officials is shaped by the cities, they need to be aware of and sensitive to the issues of the rural areas. When the media reports upon it like this, it's an emerging area of concern for the Dems and the administration and that's good.

While you might think town halls and other ways that the administration is facilitating interaction with the executive branch (such as the 10 letters he responds to weekly) are propaganda, I believe this is a genuine approach on his part to not get disconnected from the people. Which means that the letters and web forms you write to whitehouse.gov make a difference.

I don't think the man who looked down his nose and made the smart-ass comment under his breath about us "clinging to their guns and religion" is going to be all that "sensitive" to us.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Yep Van-- some of the rural Dems really are the power votes now...Like our two Montana Senators- both of who oppose any tampering with gun laws - and who both opposed the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnesty for illegal invaders...They hold the keys for/against any Liberal moves...

Right now with the Obama administration- both have much more influence for Agriculture which has been seen with the M-COOL law- and I think may be seen in the future with USDA in being more producer oriented- and less automatically on the side of the corporate conglomerates...

I agree- The GIPSA appointment does look good- and from the comments coming out of there- we could actually see it work for the producer again....

I don't know what is going to happen with the NAIS Mandatory ID- but at least the USDA didn't just jump on Bush's bandwagon of trying to shove it down our throats- and is taking comments at listening sessions- which I understand are running about 99 to 1 AGAINST....

Dudley Butler is a good appointment in my opinion but it doesn't stop there. I think Clinton had a good appointment in Jim Baker but Clinton didn't let him have any Justice Dept. help on enforcement. Of course this was when the Sec. of Agriculture was getting bribed by Tyson's Archie Schafer (who was convicted and later pardoned by Clinton).

One appointment is a step but real businesses get judged on results, not effort. The government (or at least politicians) have us believing that it is effort that counts, not results.

Tex
 
Top