Rapid partisanship is destroying our
Posted By: country on 2008-11-12
In Reply to:
We could well be facing one of the worst set of crises in our nation's history and will all need to step outside our labels and biases to come together as a nation if we want to survive the next few years. It is not as entertaining as flaming and blaming, but it would be nice to see everyone rise above the pettiness and remember that we are all Americans.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Nope, some are definitely rapid obama kool aid drinkers...sm
Try letting someone else have an opinion, for a change.
Wow, and you can ascertain all that from 4 weeks in office? Amazingly rapid political analysis!.....
nm
What does that have to do with partisanship?
We are to have partisanship with people like you?
Whatever. Feel sorry for you. Just wait in 6 months. I will be glad then to say, "I voted for the other guy." I was really hoping the O could make a change, but I wanted it for the good, not worse. Picking Emanuel proved I was right about him.
Post-Partisanship: The Obama Way...sm
The President is revealing who he really is, day by day.
It appears to be "The Obama Way" only. Sounds very dictatorial to me. The GOP are now being told who they can and can't listen to on the radio, or "we won't get along."
====================
Post-Partisanship: The Obama Way
By Adam Graham
January 23, 2009
Barack Obama in a display of post-partisanship went to House Republicans and listened to their concerns and responded with a post-partisan/healing/bring us altogether response that we expect from our new President:
During his private meeting with congressional Democrats and Republicans on Friday, President Obama ended a philosophical debate over tax policy with the simple declaration that his opinion prevailed because "I won."
Democrats called it a light-hearted moment that drew laughs around the table. Republicans said there was laughter but couldn't recall if any of it came from their ranks.
Guys, could anyone imagine George W. Bush saying something like to Democrats in 2005? I can't. It's arrogance illustrated. And Keith Olbermann would name Bush "The Worst Person in the World" for it.
Also, Barack Obama had some interest in advising the GOP on their listening habits if they wanted good relations with the White House:
Washington -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
Thus we're beginning to see Barack Obama's big problem when it comes to bi-partisanship. He doesn't know where to begin. He has never worked with Republicans on substantive matters. During the year Republicans controlled the Illinois legislature, Obama was an irrelevant backbencher. In the Senate, the one issue he worked a Republican on was relatively minor (earmark transparency.) Comments like today's won't help. If Obama can't get serious Republican support for his stimulus plan, it could get it delayed, while vulnerable Democrats seek cover. If it doesn't work, Democrats could left holding the bag if it goes wrong.
Plus, what a difference a day makes. Or at least President Obama seems to think so. He was widely expected to lift the Mexico City Policy of funding International organizations that support abortions, yesterday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Instead, he demurred and issued a tepid statement about the need to reduce abortions. It looked like he was saving his political capital and avoiding too quickly dwindling the good will he had from most Americans, so he waits one day, but still does it:
WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Friday lifted restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush.
The Democratic president's decision was a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.
When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offered abortion services or counseling in other countries, even if the funds for those activities came from non-U.S. government sources.
Ah, it's so good to know that my tax dollars now go to organizations that are sending abortion missionaries overseas to spread abortion around the world.
Did waiting until January 23rd help Obama any? Slightly. Obama did it at 5 PM ET, buried on a Friday which is good for limiting media coverage, but the folks who were going to learn about this decision and understand it were never going to hear about it from the mainstream press. Plus, not doing it on January 22nd means not being engaged with a fight on the same day as the March for Life, but Obama's still fighting the culture war on the left side of the equation.
However, realistically, this is a decision that could have waited much longer-at least until after the stimulus was passed. Most of these dollars have already been designated as to where they're going. Obama spent political capital that he could have saved for a few more weeks which makes the move a mis-step.
Obama had no choice to do it eventually. He had to pay off his supporters in the abortion rights movement, who like many other industries are looking for a bailout. However, they could have waited a little longer.
http://culture11.com/diary/36633
He is going to do that by destroying the economy...
of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio...making us all pay higher utility bills? What are his proposals? He doesn't want coal. He doesn't want nuclear. We CAN'T do it with windmills, not all of it, even T. Boone Pickens will tell you that.
Nuclear energy and building plants WOULD bring thousands of new jobs.
Sorry...his energy plans make NO sense to me, nor where he is going to get the billions, in this economy, to put his ideas into action.
He is already preparing the speech where he tells his faithful he can't do a lot of what he said he would do.
Snake oil salesman.
You are for, then....destroying the economy of...
the coal producing states and skyrocketing our electric bills...THIS on top of everything else, and he still looks GOOD to you? Amazing. lol.
It is true partisanship at work. I'm a Democrat, always have been...sm
and post here on this board as a democrat, BUT it wouldn't matter to me if an African American Democrat made these comments I would not agree and be ticked. I'm sorry but I have zero tolerance for the people who are defending these comments. It's OK to say, I like Bennett but I think he was wrong on this one. But again, some people are true partisans and can see no wrong in the likes of Bennett, Rush, Bush...
If by draining and destroying companies you mean
advocating for fair wages, good benefits, pensions, job security, PTO, reasonable schedules, OT policies and safe working conditions, please explain to me why companies should not be providing a forum for workers' input on these issues? Why are these things too much to expect?
Are these not the same things you look for in an MT job? If a company is "destroyed" by providing them, maybe it's time for them to go down. Had unions not done their thing, we would still have child labor, lax, noncompliant or nonexistent safety standards in factories and various other industries, exclusionary hiring practices, substandard wages, no benefits, be fired without redress and basically would not have much of a middle class to speak of, not to mention a much wider disparity of wealth distribution. It might be a good idea to sit and reflect for a moment or two exactly how much unions have contributed to our economic culture and what things would be like had they not. There is still a place for them in terms of preserving the advances that have been made. No doubt, these things would be disappearing right and left, slowly but surely, in their absence. Just look at what's happened in our own MT sector.
If by draining and destroying companies you mean
advocating for fair wages, good benefits, pensions, job security, PTO, reasonable schedules, OT policies and safe working conditions, please explain to me why companies should not be providing a forum for workers' input on these issues? Why are these things too much to expect?
Are these not the same things you look for in an MT job? If a company is "destroyed" by providing them, maybe it's time for them to go down. Had unions not done their thing, we would still have child labor, lax, noncompliant or nonexistent safety standards in factories and various other industries, exclusionary hiring practices, substandard wages, no benefits, be fired without redress and basically would not have much of a middle class to speak of, not to mention a much wider disparity of wealth distribution. It might be a good idea to sit and reflect for a moment or two exactly how much unions have contributed to our economic culture and what things would be like had they not. There is still a place for them in terms of preserving the advances that have been made. No doubt, these things would be disappearing right and left, slowly but surely, in their absence. Just look at what's happened in our own MT sector.
If by draining and destroying companies you mean
advocating for fair wages, good benefits, pensions, job security, PTO, reasonable schedules, OT policies and safe working conditions, please explain to me why companies should not be providing a forum for workers' input on these issues? Why are these things too much to expect?
Are these not the same things you look for in an MT job? If a company is "destroyed" by providing them, maybe it's time for them to go down. Had unions not done their thing, we would still have child labor, lax, noncompliant or nonexistent safety standards in factories and various other industries, exclusionary hiring practices, substandard wages, no benefits, be fired without redress and basically would not have much of a middle class to speak of, not to mention a much wider disparity of wealth distribution. It might be a good idea to sit and reflect for a moment or two exactly how much unions have contributed to our economic culture and what things would be like had they not. There is still a place for them in terms of preserving the advances that have been made. No doubt, these things would be disappearing right and left, slowly but surely, in their absence. Just look at what's happened in our own MT sector...or the example of WalMart, the most notorious union busters around.
Yes, time to end the 2-party system, need more real choice in government, less partisanship!..NM
nm
Yeah - taking over industries, destroying democratic principles, running
X
|
