How dumb does he think we are? (Page 4)

gearboy - 2010-01-27 9:03 AM

Signing a bill does not make him a "uniter", so I don't think I would really count McCain-Feingold.  As I recall, he got NCLB signed basically by working with Ted Kennedy and promising to do things that he later reniged on.  Kennedy felt pretty burned by that.  And the Patriot Act would have been passed under any congress under any president given the circumstances - the threat of the "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud" seemed very real to everyone.  Do you honestly think if we had another attack of the proportions of 9/11 that people would not unite behind Obama? I'm not blaming Bush for 9/11; and I'm not a conspiracy theorist who believes 9/11 was secretely a government plot to draw power to the executive branch. I'm saying it was a (relatively) unique time in history - the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, bringing a country that would otherwise be divided on an issue to a single viewpoint. (and parenthetically, I think Bush squandered the opportunities it afforded him, with the exceptions of expanding executive powers and usurping the constitution)

I think one of the other reasons that Obama is having a hard time is that the Republicans tend to be (a) more united within the party, and (b) less likely to work with a Democratic president; while Democrats (a) can't seem to work together even with a "supermajority" and (b) continually hold on to a fantasy of bipartisanship actually being an attainable goal, so they will always go to the well and try to work with the Republicans until they get burned (OK, mixed metaphor, but still...)

I think too, there is a difference between uniting the people and uniting the congress.  And Bush (as well as Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ....) tended to produce a lot of intense divisions amongst the people, even when they were able to get legislation passed.

gearboy - 2010-01-27 8:03 AM

I think one of the other reasons that Obama is having a hard time is that the Republicans tend to be (a) more united within the party, and (b) less likely to work with a Democratic president; while Democrats (a) can't seem to work together even with a "supermajority" and (b) continually hold on to a fantasy of bipartisanship actually being an attainable goal, so they will always go to the well and try to work with the Republicans until they get burned (OK, mixed metaphor, but still...)

I think too, there is a difference between uniting the people and uniting the congress.  And Bush (as well as Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ....) tended to produce a lot of intense divisions amongst the people, even when they were able to get legislation passed.

ashort33 - 2010-01-26 8:22 PM

This website does a better job of cataloguing the promise made, kept, broken etc.  The post site shows none as broken and we all know that he has not kept all of them - the one that specifically comes to mind is to post all legislation for a 3 day review before he signs it.  I would also say that the jury is out on many of the promises he made, but people want tangible results from his promises not lipservice or a form for government employees to sign....

LowcountryTRI - 2010-01-26 10:29 AM

kinda like when my wife goes shopping and comes all with all of this stuff and a huge bill, then says well at least this skirt was on sale.  yeah you big saver, you

drewb8 - 2010-01-27 10:21 AM

I doubt he was so naive as to think that just because he became president all of the sudden things would change in congress and they would magically start to work together (I blame us, the public, for actually believeing that though).

drewb8 - 2010-01-27 10:21 AM I think he made a token outreach to republicans who basically said 'thanks, but we're not going to going to work with you on a single thing anyway'.  I blame Obama for not being more forcful about it, but I think his pledge to work in a more cooperative manner was torpedoed by Reid and Pelosi who were so eager to score one over the R's after getting rolled by them for the last 8 years that it didn't matter much what Obama did or didn't do. 

TriRSquared - 2010-01-27 9:23 AM

I agree and disagree with you here. 

Disagree: The Repubs did bring HC suggestion to the plate.  They had 2 or 3 different plans.  There were ignored becuase the Dems knew they did not have the votes.  The Repubs have unfairly been labeled as the "Party of No".  In reality they are the "Party of Not That Way"

Agree: The Dems were hungry to "put one over" on the Repubs.  This is obvious by all the back door deals, closed door meetings and outright bribes they paid to certain states (which has GOT to be unconstitutional and in the civilina business world would be criminal)

drewb8 - 2010-01-27 12:18 PM

1) I think that yes, the repubs were ignored partly because the dems thought they had the votes.  But I also think that while the R's did have 2 or 3 plans, their position wasn't lets work together to incorporate aspects of our plans with yours, it was 'take our plan and only our plan or else nothing', knowing the dems wouldn't .  I think it was just an offering so they could go back and say, 'hey we tried to work with them but they wouldn't adopt our plan so now we're justified in blocking everything'.  There were reporters who asked R's "well if they include this or that idea of yours in the bill would you vote for it?" and they still said no.  Nothing short of a republican ideas only bill was going to have their support.

trinnas - 2010-01-27 10:24 AM

Could this not be said of the Dems as well going something like "We'll let you talk in the interest of "bipartisanship" but don't expect us to incorporate any of your substantive Ideas".

AcesFull - 2010-01-26 3:52 PM

Agreed.  In 2008 the country spoke loud and clear.  The electorate wanted dramatic change, and they wanted nothing to do with the failed GOP policies of the previous 8 years.  We gave the Dems sweeping power to do WHATEVER THE F*&K THEY WANTED. 

This country wanted and expected sweeping changes, and rather than do that, the Dems bickered amongst themselves and allowed themselves to be sidetracked by a minority that should have been relegated to the bleachers.  Rather than completely ignore the GOP and simply pass all the legislation they wanted, they sought to establish a consensus with a party whose primary strategy was to oppose everything, and it worked.  I don't blame the GOP for this, I blame the Dems. 

Bunch of pvssies, if you ask me, and I'm pretty p*ssed about it.

crusevegas - 2010-01-27 9:12 PM

FWIW, I don't think this is anything he's got a monopoly on though.

m-mcclain - 2010-01-26 5:51 PM This was how I sold my new bike purchase to my wife.  The bike MSRP is $4100 but I got it for $2630.  Look at all that money I saved 

jdwright56 - 2010-01-28 10:50 AM
Well, I have no particular problem with *that* logic, but only because the word "bike" is involved.  I also would not have a problem with "Garmin", "Polar", "wetsuit" or "Powertap".

drewb8 - 2010-01-27 11:55 AM

IMO - I think the dems were more open to incorprating republican ideas just because the dems have conservative members of their caucus.  The 'final' bills had many concessions to the conservative democrats that were the same as what the repubs wanted. 

I think the Reid & Pelosi were more like "We'll let you talk in the interest of "bipartisanship" but really, you can go to h*ll because we have the power now".  I think they were more concerned with rolling over the repubs like the repubs had rolled over them and flexing their muscles than in working together.

Jackemy - 2010-01-28 7:18 PM

I don't agree. blue dogs are only blue dogs until they vote. And don't tell me that many of them voted against the HC bill because the Dems had enough votes to let the Dogs in the conservative district get political cover by voting no. 

AcesFull - 2010-01-28 9:25 PM

The healthcare bill is a watered down piece of garbage, largely because the Dems kept trying to appease their own moderate wing, as well as desperately try to garner any GOP support.  Which failed.

The country begged the Dems to make real change.  So far they have failed.  Now they are in disarray because they tried to please everyone.  

AcesFull - 2010-01-29 10:33 AM

They have a monstrous advantage in the House, and had a supermajority in the Senate.  Regardless of percentage elected by, the American people handed them a blank check to pass legislation. 

AcesFull - 2010-01-29 9:33 AM

They have a monstrous advantage in the House, and had a supermajority in the Senate.  Regardless of percentage elected by, the American people handed them a blank check to pass legislation. 

trinnas - 2010-01-29 11:28 AM

This is exactly the attitude that has gotten the Dems in hot water with the electorate.  America put the congress in their hands they did not write them a blank check there is a huge difference.