FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Republican Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center 2012 (Page 11)

  This topic comprises 53 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  51  52  53   
Author Topic: Republican Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center 2012
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
BTW, Harry Reid's now making the same accusation.

quote:
“I guess Republicans think that if the economy improves, it might help President Obama,” Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “So they root for the economy to fail.”

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy.
That's not their end goal. That's just the means.
If Republicans were accused of opposing Obama's proposals for the sole purpose of opposing, I wouldn't find that particularly objectionable. It's the accusation that they're blocking Obama's proposals in order to destroy the economy, because it will hurt people and that will in turn hurt Obama, that I find cynical and objectionable.

There is indeed a fine line between malice and negligence. How many republicans are opposing forward movement out ofspite and political positioning? Probably all of them are to a degree. How many *would* do so in the face of adversely negative consequences to a large number of their constituents? How many actually want those adversely negative consequences to occur? Difficult distinctions.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So the question isn't whether they want to destroy the economy, the question is whether they're willing to destroy the economy to achieve their objectives.
After the debt ceiling debacle, I don't think that's even a question. A fair number of republicans are on record as being willing to send the US government into bankruptcy, causing global economic chaos, in order to achieve their objectives.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
Senoj-
You're claiming that the statement from Obama's camp is unduly cynical. I'm pointing out the the calculations that Obama's camp are claiming the Republicans are making are pretty similar to the calculations that politicians routinely make. Therefore, I don't see it as unduly cynical or un-presidential to make this observation. You are quibbling about how they to enunciate this claim; I dislike the implicit cost-benefit analysis on the Republican side.

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
How many Democrats dinged Bush on civil liberties out of crass political motivations? Presumably several who opposed military tribunals and called to close Guantanamo and overturn the PATRIOT Act, but then changed positions upon coming to power. That's fine; I don't have a problem with it. Partisan politics, opposition for opposition's sake.

How many Democrats opposed Bush's tactics so that the US would fail in its anti-terrorism efforts, because they thought that failure would bring them to power? Do you see how that accusation is different?

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
SenojRetep, You are drawing a false equivalence for a lot of reasons but the really important one is the Democrats never united in opposition to those things and never came close to actually blocking any of them.

A lot of Obama's proposals have been extremely similar to those that Republicans backed, even proposed, only months before Obama was elected so the chances that every single republican in congress is opposing them for ideological reasons are unfathomably small. That means that there have to be at least some republicans in congress who think Obama's proposals would be good for the country in the short term but are opposing them out of party loyalty. And unlike the Democrats under Bush, it actually makes a difference.

If you know your stand against military tribunals is never going to be adopted, you aren't under the same obligation to fully consider the impact of that proposal that you would be if the proposal was on the floor for debate and you know your vote would make the difference.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How many Democrats dinged Bush on civil liberties out of crass political motivations?
As a side note, my senator at the time was Russ Feingold. I'm proud to be able to say that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
How many Democrats dinged Bush on civil liberties out of crass political motivations? Presumably several who opposed military tribunals and called to close Guantanamo and overturn the PATRIOT Act, but then changed positions upon coming to power. That's fine; I don't have a problem with it. Partisan politics, opposition for opposition's sake.

How many Democrats opposed Bush's tactics so that the US would fail in its anti-terrorism efforts, because they thought that failure would bring them to power? Do you see how that accusation is different?

Not enough of them opposed President Bush's tactics whatever the reason.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Geraine,

quote:
I still don't understand the argument that I want to "award" the Republicans with the White House. I don't. What I want is for Congress to work. Regardless of who the President is. Obama has been a weak President and to me isn't showing the kind of tenacity and attitude to get Congress going. Clinton was able to do it, though he royally pissed off some of his Democratic colleagues.


Well, functionally-that is to say, the result of the reasoning you're applying here-what you want is for Congress to work for Republicans. Republicans obstruct the president to a degree unseen before in American politics. President largely fails to overcome the obstruction. Result: vote in a Republican president, so that Congress can work.

quote:
Obama has been unable to do the same. The policital landscape is different, but not all that different. There were still filibusters and obstruction in the 90's, but somehow we were able to get stuff done. Clinton realized that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted, and compromised. He also didn't cave. Republicans threatened a government shutdown, he called their bluff, and republicans suffered for it.

You act as though Obama-and Congressional Democrats-haven't offered to compromise. Particularly in the latest debacle, the debt ceiling issue, they didn't just compromise, they were the only ones to discuss compromise on the issues that were important to them. As for comparing the Republicans then and now, they're simply different animals. Now, not only was there Republican talk of not backing down, but if/when they didn't back down, the result would actually be good or at least not very bad at all (debt ceiling).

quote:
Obama just doesn't have that. Instead of being firm and calling republicans bluff, he just cowers and whines, and ultimately gives them what they want.

I have to admit, I'm pretty skeptical that you would actually support the President standing up to Congressional Republicans, given that your response to the success of Republican 'bluffs' is to...elect a Republican to the White House.

quote:
Now, that doesn't excuse the behavior of the Republicans. Some of the bills they have blocked were just silly. But if you want to know why republicans keep blocking legislation, the reason is simple: It works.
Well (and this sounds shot-y, but I'm not writing it in that spirit, just as an observation), judging by this conversation, it certainly does. Do their damndest to make Obama weak, stifling the efforts of government in time of war, recession, debt ceiling crisis, natural disaster...and ensure a Republican gets the office instead.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
How many Democrats dinged Bush on civil liberties out of crass political motivations?

The democrats proved universally *unwilling* to jeopardize national security by holding up legislation after 9/11. And as for overturning the Patriot Act, there was a sound body of reasoning that argued that it was no longer necessary, and no longer appropriate by 2006, and further that the President had abused the powers it provided, and flouted the laws that had been put in place at his own urging.

That's not analogous to the debt ceiling crisis at all. The debt ceiling crisis had two possible outcomes- either the debt would rise, or the country would default on its debt. The Republicans used the disastrous threat of a default to extort onerous consessions from the majority party. They threatened to allow a disaster to occur if their demands were not met. They did this quite openly, and without seeming the least concerned for the consequences of their actions, to win political points. It's unconscionable, even if it is not exactly criminal.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh, I think you are looking at my statements like I am this hardcore right wing guy that wants republicans to take over the entire country. I know some of my statements in the past on this forum have probably influenced you to think about me that way.

I don't want that. Republicans have made me sick over the past couple of years. When I say I want Congress to work, I want the both sides of the aisle to work together in a more bi-partisan fashion and pass legislation. Congressional democrats have been willing to do this, but I would argue the President has not been as willing.

In the past year I have seen Obama stop blaming Bush for everything and start blaming Republicans in Congress. It is convenient to do so. We continue to hear the same speeches about how this is all republicans fault and that higher taxes on the wealthy are the solution to our economic woes (they aren't).

This link is a good article on what happened in the 90's with Clinton. You would be surprised how much it mirrors the past few years.

http://gunston.gmu.edu/pfiffner/index_files/Page949.htm

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't want that. Republicans have made me sick over the past couple of years. When I say I want Congress to work, I want the both sides of the aisle to work together in a more bi-partisan fashion and pass legislation. Congressional democrats have been willing to do this, but I would argue the President has not been as willing.

In the past year I have seen Obama stop blaming Bush for everything and start blaming Republicans in Congress. It is convenient to do so. We continue to hear the same speeches about how this is all republicans fault and that higher taxes on the wealthy are the solution to our economic woes (they aren't).

I'd say you have a fairly different view of the past few years than I do. The whole debt ceiling debacle wasn't that long ago, and Obama was perfectly willing to deal. Personally I think he should have called their bluff, but Republicans had a gun to the head of the US economy. Like Rakeesh and others say, you're basically calling to reward them for their behavior. Any reasonable political party would NOT have had a "we do it 100% my way or I crash the entire economy" bargaining position. That isn't a bargain. That's a ransom note.

It's not just convenient to blame the Republicans, in this instance I'd say it's spot on. What do you do when you want to fix the economy but the GOP not only acts like they don't want you do, but has declared their opposition to anything and everything you want to do? Obama bent over backwards in the first two years to make things bi-partisan, and he didn't even have to! He tried to be bi-partisan when they could have rammed things through Congress. After the GOP upswing in 2010, he again tried to work with him, and Congress ground to a screeching halt for a year. They've passed almost NO legislation since the GOP took over, and you're blaming Obama for that? Come on man, re-examine the last 10 months.

Higher taxes on the super rich are something overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Polls show that even a majority of the TEA PARTY are in favor of tax increases for the super rich.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Geraine,

quote:
In the past year I have seen Obama stop blaming Bush for everything and start blaming Republicans in Congress. It is convenient to do so. We continue to hear the same speeches about how this is all republicans fault and that higher taxes on the wealthy are the solution to our economic woes (they aren't).
I'd love to hear something by a prominent Democratic politician saying something to the effect of, "Higher taxes on the rich are the solution to our economic woes." That said, I'm also curious if you stand by the claim that Obama simply went from blaming Bush for everything to blaming Congress.

Those two statements are, well, the kind of thing that lead me to conclude you're quite firmly partisan to the right, pretty hardcore.

As Lyrhawn has said, too, you are quite unhappy (according to you, and I believe you) with the way Republicans have conducted themselves in Congress. I don't think you're unaware of just *why* they've behaved in the ways you've objected to in Congress: to gain more seats, and the White House. But you've said that your vote will be...in direct support of that goal, in effect if not intent.

Do you see the disconnect there? "Republicans have behaved awfully in Congress," (to cripple any Democratic moves), "here's why I'm voting for Republicans for the WH and other elections." There's a, well, glaring contradiction there. It seems to me it is difficult to object to ultimatums and the like, and then vote to make it even more effective later.

I'm not saying that adds up to vote Democrat. I'm saying that objection and that response just don't fit together.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Rakeesh, I think you are looking at my statements like I am this hardcore right wing guy that wants republicans to take over the entire country.

Do you know why people still come to that conclusion about you?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Anyway, I'm watching Cain's time in the spotlight and the whole thing about the 999 tax plan. It's identical to the tax system in Sim City 4.

When are the republicans going to get tired of utterly terrible candidates?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Wait... I thought the horrible candidates thing was like, some sort of game plan. You're saying it's not that deep? I just assumed it had to be. I mean, that and it's hard to find somebody smart to spout this sort of nonsense.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Anyway, I'm watching Cain's time in the spotlight and the whole thing about the 999 tax plan. It's identical to the tax system in Sim City 4.

When are the republicans going to get tired of utterly terrible candidates?

How does it work out in the game? I'm just curious, I've never played.

[ October 15, 2011, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: DDDaysh ]

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Samp - You know Cain has actually had to answer questions about that. Reporters have asked him if that's where he got the plan, and he'd denied it.

The CEO of Maxis is reportedly thrilled.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DDDaysh:
How does it work out in the game? I'm just curious, I've never played.

It's the default tax system setting, 9% residential, 9% commercial, 9% industrial. Not a lot to get excited about, you usually don't have to touch it until your city gets much bigger.

There's more to fiddle with ordinance and other programs.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jebus202
Member
Member # 2524

 - posted      Profile for jebus202   Email jebus202         Edit/Delete Post 
Basically the media is bored, and found a coincidence that they think will get attention, so they are highlighting that rather than the simplistic nature of the actual proposed plan.

Instead of saying "LOL, your tax plan is from a video game, did you copy it?", they should be saying "Your tax plan is similar to a video game's which is aimed at idiots with little interest in an effective tax structure. Are you, yourself, also an idiot?"

Well, not in so many words, but you get the idea.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Well... I think it's at least *easier* to ask if he copied the plan from a video game. The implication is that he is an idiot- but the media doesn't really have the balls to just call him on having the stupidest idea that got nationwide play in recent weeks.

I just laugh every time a reporter *doesn't* follow up on the question of the effect on consumer spending on actual revenues under the plan- especially when the answer is ":long silence: UUUUMMMMMMM......"

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Samp - You know Cain has actually had to answer questions about that. Reporters have asked him if that's where he got the plan, and he'd denied it.

The tax plan being identical to one from sim city isn't the issue. Well, at least not in terms of whether or not his 'economist' advisor cribbed it from a game. The issue is that it's his economic plan, and it's so terrible that I don't think anyone whose economic ideals are even slightly realistic are going to be defending it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Of course. But it's kind of funny. [Smile]

Actually, Cain has refused to reveal any of his campaign advisors since telling the public who one of his economic advisors is. He claims the guy was savaged by the media, and the media just 'wants to know who his smart people are' so they can criticize. Part of me thinks rejecting that request is clever from a campaign perspective, but on the other hand, as a voter, isn't it our right to know who his smart people are, if he's not coming up with the ideas himself?

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Part of me thinks rejecting that request is clever from a campaign perspective,
I don't know how I'm supposed to see it as very clever. It's obvious damage control mode by a completely boned candidate, hoping to grant himself some cover by retreating to a Palinesque 'the media is just out to get me' position in order to hope that he can keep this from being a rightfully run-ending issue.

This is why I ask when the GOP is going to get tired of being wowed by all these really terrible, vacuous, irredeemable candidates. We've already cycled through Palin, Trump, and Bachmann. If there had been any lessons learned, Cain would not be the newest frontrunner in the campaign. Apparently, however, they're not quite yet ready to evolve their primaries beyond the nutty circus phase. All they're really missing is a legacy appearance by perennial non-starter candidate Tom "nuke mecca" Tancredo to finish the 'do you see what we mean about the tea party' pentafecta.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah.

December could be really interesting if New Hampshire really moves up that early. You could see two or so candidates drop out immediately. Bachmann will hang on through Iowa to see how she does, then probably out. Huntsman will be out after New Hampshire without a strong showing. Both of them are burning through cash at an unsustainable rate. Perry and Romney, and I'd bet Cain now, have the war chests to hang on as long as necessary, but most everyone else will be out after the first three or four races.

I still think things could get interesting if this boils down to a two man race and it's Romney versus a more conservative (well, it will have to be). If Cain or Perry picks up all the rest of the electorate when the drop out, Romney still has something to worry about. But if they stubbornly hold on longer than they should, they'll split the vote enough.

It's only really clever, his rejection of their questions, when you consider that revealing campaign advisors is a pretty standard thing they have to go through.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Geraine,

quote:
In the past year I have seen Obama stop blaming Bush for everything and start blaming Republicans in Congress. It is convenient to do so. We continue to hear the same speeches about how this is all republicans fault and that higher taxes on the wealthy are the solution to our economic woes (they aren't).
I'd love to hear something by a prominent Democratic politician saying something to the effect of, "Higher taxes on the rich are the solution to our economic woes." That said, I'm also curious if you stand by the claim that Obama simply went from blaming Bush for everything to blaming Congress.

Those two statements are, well, the kind of thing that lead me to conclude you're quite firmly partisan to the right, pretty hardcore.

As Lyrhawn has said, too, you are quite unhappy (according to you, and I believe you) with the way Republicans have conducted themselves in Congress. I don't think you're unaware of just *why* they've behaved in the ways you've objected to in Congress: to gain more seats, and the White House. But you've said that your vote will be...in direct support of that goal, in effect if not intent.

Do you see the disconnect there? "Republicans have behaved awfully in Congress," (to cripple any Democratic moves), "here's why I'm voting for Republicans for the WH and other elections." There's a, well, glaring contradiction there. It seems to me it is difficult to object to ultimatums and the like, and then vote to make it even more effective later.

I'm not saying that adds up to vote Democrat. I'm saying that objection and that response just don't fit together.

Again, I am not looking to give Republicans the Presidency because they deserve it. I'm looking for someone that I think would be able to unite the country and move forward. If there was a democrat that challenged Obama in a primary and I thought that person would be able to work well with congress, I'd consider voting for them.

Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.

This is politics as usual. Republicans and democrats both use the same tired old arguments every election cycle. Each side throws out claims of obstruction, class warfare, etc. The problem is this doesn't help. Candidates may think it helps their campaigns, but in reality it doesn't.

Gore had a lead until he started running on a class warfare platform, and saw his lead evaporate. Kerry fell even further in the polls when he started doing it. In contrast, Clinton didn't play that game. Rather, he got behind Welfare Reform, a balanced budget, and government spending cuts. As a result he absolutely creamed Dole.

Obama has kind of backed himself into a corner. The economy is not doing well and he knows it. He is trying to get votes by playing class warfare, and I think it is a bad move. Look at his 2008 campaign vs. this one. In 2008 he was able to bring lower and upper class voters together with a promise of "Hope and Change." Since then he has pretty much alienated the upper class. He will hold on to the lower class voters without a doubt, but I think his support among middle and upper class voters is starting to dwindle.

Long story short; find me a democratic presidential candidate that can end the congressional gridlock, and I'll vote for them. Otherwise I'll be voting for the person that I think can do a better job than Obama. If that person is a republican, then so be it.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Gore had a lead until he started running on a class warfare platform...
Out of interest, which of Gore's proposed policies would you characterize in this way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Geraine,

quote:
Again, I am not looking to give Republicans the Presidency because they deserve it. I'm looking for someone that I think would be able to unite the country and move forward. If there was a democrat that challenged Obama in a primary and I thought that person would be able to work well with congress, I'd consider voting for them.


Well I'm glad you acknowledge (though I could be misreading, you'll correct me if I'm mistaken?) that Republicans don't deserve the White House this election. But for the sake of argument, you may very well be right. Romney may be the man to unite and move forward, etc. But what happens next time the Republicans are a minority party in Congress and out of the White House? Are they just supposed to forget how brilliantly effective (should Romney or another Republican contender) this technique was? Signing on with this method of politics-and that's precisely what voting for a Republican this term is, in effect if not in intent-guarantees this kind of obstructionist deadlock indefinitely whenever conditions are right.

quote:
Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.


Wait a minute. The Patriot Act? Democrats obstructed on that? And that's just one easy example. Federal judge confirmations? That kind of roadblocking happens all the time, and it's nothing special (though it has ratcheted up lately)-so to suggest Democrats are especially obstructionist there is pretty strange. As for the rest, much of the objection was actually ideological-that is, they didn't support it was considered ineffective and harmful.

The same cannot be honestly said of Republican obstruction in Congress today, unless we're buying entirely into their line of reasoning which is apparently, "Democrats are so bad for the country that it's better we make sure they get as little done as possible, period, than anything. Compromise is to be minimized, not sought out."

quote:
This is politics as usual. Republicans and democrats both use the same tired old arguments every election cycle. Each side throws out claims of obstruction, class warfare, etc. The problem is this doesn't help. Candidates may think it helps their campaigns, but in reality it doesn't.

Oh. I didn't realize we were on a 'they're the same' track.

quote:
Long story short; find me a democratic presidential candidate that can end the congressional gridlock, and I'll vote for them. Otherwise I'll be voting for the person that I think can do a better job than Obama. If that person is a republican, then so be it.
Fair enough. But then don't say that you object to Republican obstructionist behavior in Congress (not long ago, you were semi-acknowledging it. Now you appear to have backed off). Because you don't, not anymore than I'd be a vegetarian if I ate beef, pork, and chicken...only for family meals a few times a week.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Gore ran a class warfare platform???? In what universe??

You are forgetting that Gore had a lead in the popular vote on the day of the election. Gore lost the election because of failure to have his campaign manager and brother counting and certifying the Florida votes and not because his platform was unpopular with the majority of the American public.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I am not looking to give Republicans the Presidency because they deserve it. I'm looking for someone that I think would be able to unite the country and move forward. If there was a democrat that challenged Obama in a primary and I thought that person would be able to work well with congress, I'd consider voting for them.
I'm confused Geraine. You seem to accept the proposition that Congressional republicans are being obstructionist in order to win the Presidency. If that's true, then it must follow that they wouldn't be cooperating with any one but a republican. Your argument then basically boils down to "I'd support a democratic candidate if that candidate was a republican".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.
In what world was the Democratic Party obstructing the Patriot Act?

Also, are you trying to say that the two parties have largely been the same when it comes to obstructionism, that there's no notable difference between the two in that sense?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Even pointing out the way the disparity of wealth in this country is so extremely skewed upwards in ways that haven't been true for generations is considered 'class warfare'.

Even suggesting that, hey, somehow the rich are continuing to get enormously richer in this country despite our 'extremely high' taxes is class warfare. Pointing out, "Hey, maybe we're being a bit too friendly to the top half of the top percent at the expense of other citizens," even if that is not (as you suggested, Geraine) the 'solution' offered by Democrats is 'class warfare'.

What class warfare in this country is, is something very like socialism: a bogeyman conjured up by the GOP and others, scaring people into voting in support of the interest of a group they will (like just about all of us) never be a part of.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well I'm glad you acknowledge (though I could be misreading, you'll correct me if I'm mistaken?) that Republicans don't deserve the White House this election. But for the sake of argument, you may very well be right. Romney may be the man to unite and move forward, etc. But what happens next time the Republicans are a minority party in Congress and out of the White House? Are they just supposed to forget how brilliantly effective (should Romney or another Republican contender) this technique was? Signing on with this method of politics-and that's precisely what voting for a Republican this term is, in effect if not in intent-guarantees this kind of obstructionist deadlock indefinitely whenever conditions are right.
Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, what if Democrats recognized how brilliantly effective these tactics were and starting acting the same way. Would that be the kind of representative democracy any of us want?

If we want a society where people from different perspectives are able to work together to find mutually beneficial solutions to problems, then we have to stop rewarding people who aren't willing to work cooperatively. We have to stop accepting politicians who treat the opposition as an enemy to be defeated at any cost rather than fellow citizens who are also want what's best for the nation. If we think there is value in accommodating each others needs and desires, then we have to stop rewarding political parties who want the winner to take the spoils.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Class Warfare?

Republicans in Florida led a campaign requiring all people who get welfare must take Drug tests.

Why?

Because the wealthy want us to believe that anyone in the class of poor, who require welfare to live, are drug addicts or worse.

That is class warfare.

The fact that this resulted in less than 3% of the people testing positive has not deterred them from their attacks.

Every back yard bully, serial killer, and sadist say the same things to and of their victims. "They deserved it."

Every petty thief, con-man, and embezzler says the same thing about the stuff they stole. "We deserved it."

That is what I hear instead of Christian compassion, spewing from the right these days. The wealthy say "We deserve it." and the poverty of others--"They deserve it."

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Some how its never "class warfare" when the wealthy promote policies that benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of society. Its only "class warfare" when the lower classes fight back.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FoolishTook
Member
Member # 5358

 - posted      Profile for FoolishTook   Email FoolishTook         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.
Just want to interrupt the piling on to say that I think this is a pretty valid point. If memory serves, I remember how filibuster-happy the democrats in Congress were during the Bush years.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:

Again, I am not looking to give Republicans the Presidency because they deserve it. I'm looking for someone that I think would be able to unite the country and move forward. If there was a democrat that challenged Obama in a primary and I thought that person would be able to work well with congress, I'd consider voting for them.

Geraine, again you get that those two candidate would "move forward" in different directions, right? How are you going to "move forward" and unite the country when the country disagrees on which way forward is? In terms of forward movement, stopping is better than movement if movement is backwards.

Work well with Congress to do what?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
In what world was the Democratic Party obstructing the Patriot Act?

Sadly, only in the lovely fantasy world in my head. [Frown]
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Foolish Took, if you look at the numbers you will find that Republican's have been significantly more Filibuster and Judge-blocking than the Democrats were. Some blame the timidness of the Democrats for this, but it is not now a tit-for-tat. Its a, "hey this works so we'll be stubborn and get what we want" tactic.

Again, its a "Blame the victim" excuse, a "they did it before so I get to do it now" excuse, an excuse that my son grew out of before turning 8.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Filibustering has been a state of affairs both parties have eagerly embraced as of late. I don't think it really matter which party has done it more, there's no reason to expect the Democrats won't do it just as much if the Republicans gain the presidency, and maintain control of the House.

Until that option is taking away, it's going to be used. The next time raising the federal debt ceiling comes up, expect that to come about with quite a few hitches every time as well.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by FoolishTook:
quote:
Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.
Just want to interrupt the piling on to say that I think this is a pretty valid point. If memory serves, I remember how filibuster-happy the democrats in Congress were during the Bush years.
You are remembering wrong.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You are remembering wrong.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm


Well to be fair, Foolish Took isn't exactly remembering wrong. Republicans did do an awful lot of complaining about filibustering and general obstructionism by the democrats under GW Bush. But you can't argue with the numbers and they show that the dems didn't hold a candle to what the Republicans are doing now. This is just one more aspect of the depth of hypocrisy in the Republican party.

Furthermore, in the months following 911 the democrats pretty much rubber stamped everything the republicans proposed, including a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with national security. During those day, the Bush did a lot of grand standing about the importance of uniting in the face of emergency and democrats by and large did that.

The thing is, the economic crisis that Obama inherited from Bush was in many ways at least as serious a national crisis as 911 and though Obama made calls for unity in responding to that crisis, the republicans in congress, right down to the last person, refused to work with the President and congressional democrats to address the issue.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm surprised to see Rubin post an editorial like this one. I don't think Mr. Cain has necessarily done anything wrong, he could have easily been in a position where he couldn't do anything. But he definitely needs to clarify this. If Mitt Romney's days at Bain Capital speak to his experience with how to manage the economy, then Cain's time at Aquila is just as important.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
don't think Mr. Cain has necessarily done anything wrong, he could have easily been in a position where he couldn't do anything.
It's highly unlikely that he was in a position where he couldn't do anything. Even if he was not in a position to change the company policy, he could have expressed concerns about high risk investments in writing or made a written protest of misleading literature sent out by the company or taken steps to inform employs about what was being done with their pension plan. He was responsible for oversight so at a bare minimum, he was negligent in that duty. For that reason, I think its highly unlike that he or his team will make a more honest attempt to address the issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Rabbit: I lean towards saying he bears some of the fault, but I'll still give the man a chance to explain himself.

I don't think he will be able to dodge this issue, the Romney campaign would be fools not to keep bringing it up now that ABC has run with it.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
In what world was the Democratic Party obstructing the Patriot Act?

Sadly, only in the lovely fantasy world in my head. [Frown]
It didn't just happen in your head [Razz] :

From 2005

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aRQ12P34vK2Y&refer=us

quote:


Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush accused Senate Democrats of ``inexcusable'' obstruction for failing to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act in its current form, while a group of senators sought to increase pressure for a three-month extension.

The senators said at a news conference in Washington that 52 Senate members, including eight Republicans, signed a letter urging a three-month extension so negotiators can fashion a renewed version of the anti-terrorism law. Without renewal or extension of the law, key provisions would expire at the end of the year.

``The terrorist threat is not going to expire at the end of this year,'' Bush told reporters. ``The expiration of this law will endanger America and will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers.''

Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee had previously rejected a proposal by Democrats, and a handful of Republicans, for a three-month extension of the law while congressional leaders seek a compromise.

Opponents said the version of the bill proposed by Republican congressional wouldn't protect Americans' civil liberties. A Democratic-led filibuster, which requires 60 votes to overcome, last week blocked Senate passage of the measure.

``This obstruction is inexcusable,'' Bush said today.


History repeats itself, the only difference is who is in control. This happened during Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and almost every other president.

Blackblade, I do agree with you that the filibuster rules need to change.

Kmboots I really don't think that we are so different. I know that opinions on which way to move forward differ, but I sincerely think our goals are the same. I think that enables us to work together to get to those goals. Right now it just seems that there are a lot of people that don't want that. There is a senate race here in Nevada next year, and to be honest I am considering voting for Shelly Berkley over Dean Heller, simply because in the past she has been more willing to work with republicans.

And I truly mean what I said. If there was a democratic primary and somebody else ran against Obama, I would compare them to the rest of the candidates, and would consider voting for them.

Rakeesh, if it makes you feel better, I promise that I will scrutinize the person that receives the republican nomination and determine if I think he would do a better job than Obama. If I think Obama would better serve the American people, I will vote for him. Right off the top of my head, if Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, or Perry get the nomination, I'll vote Obama without hesitation. I will admit I like Paul and Romney. The others I do not know a whole lot about and admittedly need to research more.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
History repeats itself, the only difference is who is in control.
Do you recognize no differences in degree?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Differences in degree are inconvenient. Fact one and fact two are equal. Very egalitarian.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Just curious about something here, Rakeesh. I may be misreading you, so please bear in mind I am not trying to misrepresent you or anything like that. I am excising most of the other stuff for clarity, not to twist your words, so let me know if you feel I have done that somehow.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
...hey, somehow the rich are continuing to get enormously richer in this country despite our 'extremely high' taxes...

Do you think that the fact that the rich are continuing to get enormously rich is, taken by itself, a bad thing? If so, why? If not, is it neutral? Good?

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
..."Hey, maybe we're being a bit too friendly to the top half of the top percent at the expense of other citizens,"...

When you say "being too friendly" do you mean we are doing that by stacking the deck unfairly in favor of rich people, or do you mean by not stacking it heavy enough in someone else's favor? Why, in either case? If the answer is hidden option C, I'm curious what was meant.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Do you think that the fact that the rich are continuing to get enormously rich...
I think it is problematic that the rich continue to arrogate to themselves a larger and larger portion of our shared pie, at a rate that outpaces the growth of the overall pie; everyone else gets smaller pieces, and theirs only grows. This is, I think, a problem that becomes increasingly severe the longer it is unaddressed.

quote:
When you say "being too friendly" do you mean we are doing that by stacking the deck unfairly in favor of rich people...
The deck is absolutely stacked in favor of rich people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 53 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  51  52  53   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2