Tonight, returning to his true form that got him elected in the first place, President Obama fought back the tide of unrelenting criticism, inside Washington politics, and a 24/7 campaign of right wing carpet bombing that has been waged since January 20, 2009. Battered by the unending healthcare debate, inside dealing on both sides of the aisle as well as by his own chief of staff, the President took control of the debate tonight. He brought the fight to the Republicans by challenging them to actually do something besides working for the political win to defeat the Democrats while millions of Americans suffer.
During the first part of the speech, the Repubs sat on their hands in typical form, until he shamed them into reluctant support of their own policies; tax cuts, government efficiency, and job growth. He also pushed for continued effort to reform health care, going after banks who were bailed out by the taxpayer, and the perpetual problem that "every day is election day" where partisan gain is more important than serving the people.
It seems that the President has found his voice again. I hope he now keeps it and takes the fight for the American people to those who oppose progress in the cynical fight for partisan gain.
The beat goes on.
During the first part of the speech, the Repubs sat on their hands in typical form, until he shamed them into reluctant support of their own policies; tax cuts, government efficiency, and job growth. He also pushed for continued effort to reform health care, going after banks who were bailed out by the taxpayer, and the perpetual problem that "every day is election day" where partisan gain is more important than serving the people.
It seems that the President has found his voice again. I hope he now keeps it and takes the fight for the American people to those who oppose progress in the cynical fight for partisan gain.
The beat goes on.
Gov Huntsman from UTAH is a "liberal" Republican? He might be a liberal Utah Repub, but thats still more than enough to be conservie most places...Secty Gates? Secty of the Army McHugh? Either way, Johnnie, your argument lacks substance. I dont recall any Democrats in Chimpys house...dick would have ate them anyway. Lets face it, your definition of bipartisanship would be to for the Dems to let the 'Pubs run things as they wish...no matter what PO does, it will never be enough. The backlash to 8 years of incompetency and graft was the 2009 election results. When youre in the minority, youre backs against it-and that holds true anywhere except financially. When youre minority is next to nada, youre really in it. Reminds me of Cowboy fans whining about the score being run up-well, stop them! Or in this case, stop peddling the same old tired failed ideology. Gays, women, and minorities make up a growing sector-look at your diversity demographics, and fawning over elitists like Limpy, Bleck, and Bauer. Unqualified candidates like Caribou and PR nightmares like Joe-the-nonplumber. Yeah, Caribou is female, but shes lazy, vindictive, and a little nutty-not a good representative of American women. Just because shes against ALL abortion doesnt make her a quality candidate for Veep.
I'm not displaying symptoms of anything. I'm simply pointing out the falsehood in your argument. You accused the Dems of shutting out the Repubs, which is false. Then you accuse the Dems of not being bipartisan, which is false. Then you fail to acknowledge well known history of DeLay and the Repubs engineering hyper-partisanship. The Repubs have no intention of voting for anything that helps the American people if there is the slightest chance that it will help Obama or the Dems. Wake up and smell rot of the Republican party.
"The climate that the DEMOCRATS have created? That's a load of crap."
I don't think either you or Bob has really understood what I am trying to say.
In fact, both of you are exhibiting the symptoms of why we have the situation we have today. Neither side is willing to change because they want to blame the other side for this or that.
It's like the Hatfields and McCoys. They keep killing each other because one of them killed one of the other so far back they can't remember.
Blame whoever you want. Both sides will have to change if bi-partisanship is to be achieved. The Democrats can't just expect the Republicans to change unless they are willing to change themselves.
Do you think the Republicans will change just because Obama has chided them about it? Would you if you were in that situation? No, I don't think you would. No one would make any effort to improve a relationship unless the other party in the relationship was willing to reciprocate.
The climate that the Democrats have created?
The climate that the DEMOCRATS have created? That's a load of crap.
John, you are a smart man. Don't tell me you really believe that.
The GOP is the party of NO. NO NO NO.
The hyper-partisanship started on the right. Blame Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, his student.
But let's place the blame squarely where it belongs.
On the right and with Faux being the major propaganda machine.
John Galt - I wasn't making an excuse for anything. The Dems have reached out and to the Repubs to join them (not just 3 "liberals" as you assert) in doing what the people overwhelmingly elected them to do in 06 and 08. I point out what the Repubs did UP UNTIL 06 (not 15 years ago) only to correct the record that somehow Dems started extreme partisanship, which they didn't. Obama has done FAR MORE than Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II did to encourage bi-partisanship. You'll recall that Bush II engaged in Fox style name calling, insulting, and calling into question Dems partriotism when some failed to toe his jingoistic policies.
"But since when has a minority as voted on by the general public, get to dictate "as an equal partner"?"
Yes, I meant in proportion to the size of their delegation. You had mentioned that the Democrats "reached out" to 2 liberal Republicans and 1 Independent, and I was only trying to show that they needed to make a bigger effort.
"BTW...do you know who created the climate of extreme partisanship?"
I guess I can't buy this as a viable excuse.
How can you say you detest what DeLay and the Republicans did 15 years ago, but then stand up and say that you think its OK for the Democrats to do it now?
Its either right or wrong. It is not contingent on who is doing it.
Now, having destroyed some of my own argument concerning blaming the Democrats for souring the current atmosphere, I still say that if Obama really wants true bi-partisanship, then he needs to work with his own party too, to make sure that those old polarizing practices are stopped.
I have to admit that I do not see that happening, but perhaps I will be surprised.
I like your style.
Some have accused the democrats of taking advantage of the current situation. Some have even said they are kicking the republicans while they are down.
I say, kicking a guy while he's down saves you having to lean over and hit him with your fist:-)
John Galt wrote, "So, yes, we definitely need more bi-partisanship, but Democrats have to be willing to include the other side as an equal partner."
Um, no they don't. Bipartisanshap and negotiations and some concessions, yes. But since when has a minority as voted on by the general public, get to dictate "as an equal partner"?
Again, this is where Democrats are weak and we are even having this coversation directed by those voted out of power. Tell me, when have Tom DeLay or Newt Gingrich even broached the other side to discuss legislation, much less treat the minority Democrats as "equal partners" during their tenure?
Again, I disagree. The Democrats didn't create some negative climate. Repubs boycotted HEARINGS on the issue from the beginning. They introduced hundreds of frivolous amendments to slow down the legislative process. They even demanded that an entire amendment be read word for word on the floor of the Senate when the content was already known.
BTW...do you know who created the climate of extreme partisanship? The Repubs. When DeLay took over as majority whip, then majority leader, he shut down the legislative committee that scheduled bills. He ran the schedule out of his office, not even allowing amendments from Dems to be introduced, much less voted on. He cancelled the Members lunch, a long standing tradition where Dems and Repubs get together once a week for lunch to discuss issues. He also threatened to discipline any Repub seen talking with a Dem outside of official channels. He started this in 1995, and unfortunately, a lot of it has hung over since he was ousted from office.
"A bipartisan Senate bill to form a deficit fighting commission had 33 co-sponsors, both Dems and Repubs. When the vote came, most of the Repubs voted against it, INCLUDING 6 OF ITS CO-SPONSORS."
That is a good example, and, in this case, I think you are right - they just wanted to inflict defeat.
But I think you have to consider the climate that the Democrats have created up to now by openly locking Republicans out of any kind of opportunity to participate in crafting legislation.
Its the old schoolyard chant of blaming the other person for throwing the first blow or inflicting the first insult. But, fact is, thats what happens and it sours the atmosphere.
So, yes, we definitely need more bi-partisanship, but Democrats have to be willing to include the other side as an equal partner.
When they are NOT the party in power, the republicans have one thing on their agenda. ONE THING. Getting back in power. And their way to do that is to make the democrates look bad. IT's just that simple.
bubbabobcat: "The Democrats did try to reach across the aisle"
Be honest now. Taking your own statement as evidence, they only approached those liberal Republicans in an attempt to get what they wanted. Problem is, what they wanted was crafted in a totally non-partisan way.
John Galt - I hear what you are saying, but the Repubs just throw up that argument as smokescreen. Example: A bipartisan Senate bill to form a deficit fighting commission had 33 co-sponsors, both Dems and Repubs. When the vote came, most of the Repubs voted against it, INCLUDING 6 OF ITS CO-SPONSORS. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32048.html
McCain, Brownback, Crapo, Ensign, our own Kay Bailey, and Inhofe sponsored a bill that they then voted against. Why would they do that? To inflict a political defeat on the Dems and Obama. This flies in the face of their complaints that they are not being heard.
John Galt, I have previously posted this on the chron (and since been deleted) but I think it applies here as well regarding your point on bipartisanship being a two-way street.
The Democrats did try to reach across the aisle...to the very few Republicans (2 and one independent that votes Republican - Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Joe Schlemielberman) willing to "negotiate" and got bitch slapped for extending an olive branch.
They weakened the Democratic reform bill because they tried to appease the "moderate" Repubs Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and stripped out the public option and then Medicare eligibility at 55, among other provisions and then they turned around and said not good enough and voted against it anyway.
How about just a little modicum of reciprocation from the Just Say No Party?
I agree wholeheartedly about the need for greater bi-partisanship, but it is a two way street.
How can the Democrats complain about the lack of bi-partisanship when all they have done is shut out the Republicans on every major bill they have attempted to pass?
Obama talked a lot about how he was going to change Washington for the better during his campaign, how things were going to be open and transparent, bills posted on the internet for everyone to read before votes were taken, deliberations with all sides aired on CSPAN, etc.
But it didn't happen.
Now, a year later, and after a Senate election that potentially limits the Democrat's ability to push through legislation without Republican support, it suddenly becomes important again.
Yep, I enjoyed watching him kick ass and take names. Just ask I had asked him to do (I do send freqent emails to the WH!)
Meanwhile, watching the TeaBagger's faces getting redder and redder (I believe they used to refer to it as apoplexy) was very entertaining. They looked like they were not enjoying having those steel rods implanted in their backsides.
TS or should I refer to you as "BS". Nice hit and run there bud. A lot of words but very little substance, but that does describe you very well.
You are my hero. It was refreshing to see a president GIVE as good as he gets. Now, I hope THAT guy stays around and kicks some ass. That's what we elected him to do and that's what I expect.
TruthSeeker, go soak your head in your TeaBag.
(Sorry Eljefe....every time I want to be nice, and try to be nice, someone like Truth(Lie)Defender comes over here and doesn't even have a reasonable argument....it's just more of the "you drank the koolaid" crapola......it gets boring. That's why I left the chron to get away from that shit.)
Meanwhile, what I witnessed last night was the man I voted for. It was enjoyable and good to see.
And I witnessed the ugly lunkheads on the right side of the aisle (whom I did NOT vote for!) showing their true colors. Sitting on their hands. It was refreshing to see Pres. Obama smack them around, and remind us that it was THEIR side that got us in this mess we are in, over the last eight years. I loved hearing him remind everyone that in 2000 we had a budget surplus but that we had TWO unfunded wars AND a tax cut (mostly to the weathy fat cats).
Truthstretcher - The reason you opinions have no credibility is the hyperbole with which you speak most of the time. Question...what would you do?
Bob wrote: Tonight, returning to his true form that got him elected in the first place,
-------------
I HOPE that IS his true form. I would have liked him to be even more aggressive with congress but that would probably be counter-productive with those morons from both parties.
"Here's what we need to do. Here's what we're gonna do. And if you get in my way I'll run you over." That's what I wanted to hear. I'll admit, he did come close.
But, if he'll take off the tennis shoes, put on the 5/8 inch cleets, and dig in. He might EARN a second term.
But, don't trust the republicans. They are NOT your friends.
Overall I give him a B+ for the speech.
Funny... you bought that. He just filled your glass full of his Kol-aid and your gulping it down. His so-called spending freeze... ha. Like going to a buffet and eating for 3 days strait, then saying well I had a diet coke so that helps right?
Come on.
I think the base has forced hm to find his voice. I just hope his message of change has not been lost permanently. With his new stance on a spending freeze, I am not going to hold my breath.