Reply With Quote
Nothing ever changes without some kind of force/pressure/change agent brought to bear.
Nothing ever changes without some kind of force/pressure/change agent brought to bear.
Agreed. democrats = republicans; bush = obama
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol..._and033982.php
Consider this tidbit: cloture was invoked 63 times in 2009 and 2010, which isn’t just the most ever, it’s more than the sum total of instances from 1919 through 1982. That’s not a typo.
Just posting a link... there's an actual chart to Congress' numbers in the article... other than that, I fully agree Barry = Bush Jr Jr
What Jr did better than Barry to pressure Congress was do more pressers... I recall him many times going out there and giving a speech on TV saying "I'm sending this bill to Congress <blah, blah, blah>"... with the increasing amount of 24 hrs news outlets begging to get a new story, there's no way you don't get coverage from a presidential presser.
Really? When it comes to pieces of the Bush agenda that needed deliberate congressional/presidential action to continue, not only was that compromise apparently worth trying for, it sure seems to have always been found successfully. Bush tax cuts, continuation of the patriot act powers and expansion of warrantless wiretapping being three prime examples. Frankly, continuing the Bush agenda appears to be the only thing that both parties can agree on.
I don't think it's as much bitterness from Starr & Bush/Gore as it is the fact that the two parties have become genized. They're both for the same things yet need to distinguish themselves from the other. All they can do to accomplish that is cling to a handful of social wedge issues and demonize the other.Marco Rubio, all other opinions of him withstanding, went on the Daily Show a few weeks ago and was (begrudgingly) willing to accept that his party is (at least partially) responsible for the deadlock. The modern idea of compromise is "the other side does what we want." Some of the New School make no bones about it, and even go so far as to say it publicly and are winning support BASED on that idea! It was Mourdock's entire theme in ousting Sen. Lugar.
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T_tvlCtYuPQ
This is all the spiraling bitterness from Ken Starr and the Bush v. Gore decision. Both sides have made it their #1 priority to beat the other side, not to do what's best for our country.
[Insert boutons telling us it's only the Republican's doing it here]
(PS: I think the Blame Game goes 70:30 Red Team:Blue Team right now)
The Democrats biggest mistake during the past few years was not changing the filibuster rule after it became clear that Republicans were going to abuse it. I believe the rule could have been changed with a simply majority vote, which they had. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if the Republicans gain control of the Senate in this next election, they will quickly make the change to prevent Democrats from doing to Romney what Republicans did to Obama.
Because this country has turned debate into catchphrases/buzzwords... "soft on terror!", "death panels!", "tax the millionaires!"... and politicians have bought into all of it.
Good info.
Yep. Catering to the short attention spans of the population.
Speaking of catchphrases & buzzwords, I live in one of the new redistricted congressional districts here in the state. The district I am in was drawn to be republican. Needless to say, whoever won the republican primary this year for that seat basically gets a sweet congressional gig for life. I believe there were 8 (edit: I looked it up, there were 12!) republicans vying for the nomination. Thanks to a decision I made in 2008 to vote in the republican primary so that I could vote for Ron Paul, I'm now on "the list" as someone who might actually give enough of a to vote in a primary. Literally I would get at least two mailers a day. Didn't matter which candidate sent them, they all read the same. Same catchphrases, same buzzwords, every one of them wanting to save me from Barack Obama's socialist policies.Oh it was annoying as .
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 07-09-2012 at 10:14 PM.
It gets worse... nowadays things like presidential debates end up rated on "how did he do" and "what did he say" vs the actual ideas or proposals. Did he say the right buzzwords and catchphrases that pleases the sector of the population he's vying for? Pathetic stuff, tbh.Yep. Catering to the short attention spans of the population.
Speaking of catchphrases & buzzwords, I live in one of the new redistricted congressional districts here in the state. The district I am in was drawn to be republican. Needless to say, whoever won the republican primary this year for that seat basically gets a sweet congressional gig for life. I believe there were 8 (edit: I looked it up, there were 12!) republicans vying for the nomination. Thanks to a decision I made in 2008 to vote in the republican primary so that I could vote for Ron Paul, I'm now on "the list" as someone who might actually give enough of a to vote in a primary. Literally I would get at least two mailers a day. Didn't matter which candidate sent them, they all read the same. Same catchphrases, same buzzwords, every one of them wanting to save me from Barack Obama's socialist policies.
Nowadays? It has been like that for a long time. I remember Perot shredding both Bush and Clinton on NAFTA during a debate but all anyone could talk about was his big ears. I remember Bradley just curbstomping Gore in the ABC Nightline debates in the primary season leading up to the 2000 election, but Gore had that huge smile, good hair, and soothing voice complete with useless storytelling and won the nomination going away. The 2000 election just made me completely give up faith in this nation ever being any good again, and this one is even worse.
Sorry, time flies
As if Romney's any different
Romney is no better than Obama. Obama and Romney are basically the same person.
Obama and Romney the same....Tell that to the one million Iranians who are still alive today because Obama beat crazyman McCain in 2008
Obama and Romney both support Gitmo, the so-called war on a tactic/crime, the Patriot Act, and the NDAA. Yep, Obama and Romney are nothing alike.
don't forget open borders
no they don't...I'm not sure of Romney's position on GITMO....I would suppose he if for the GOP plan of keeping it open indefinitely...Obama is for closing GITMO...he is for closing GITMO except that he can't return most of the prisoners who are left to their own countries, he can't send them to a third country and he can't bring them to jails in the US mainland...so what can Obama do to the prisoners still in GITMO?Obama and Romney both support Gitmo
...besides, GITMO is no longer the 24-7 'frat party' it was under Bush/Cheney...the underlying point in your own post acknowledges that their was likely abuse of prisoners at GITMO...that in itself is progress I guess...
Obama is for repealing most parts of the Patriot act, except that the nation is not ready to repeal the patriot act..when people quit overreacting to the propaganda that voting for the repeal of the patriot act is a vote against the sovereignty and security of the U.S....you'll see the Patriot Act repealed...not that it matters because the GOP seems bent to look the other way when it comes to investigating National Security matters...the Patriot Act
You mean the same NDAA the veto-proof GOP-controlled Congress voted for?and the NDAA
The one which Obama issued a specific executive order saying he did not want this nor will he use it?
That NDAA?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
