As to the bolded, if you are referring to McConnell's comments that he wanted to make President Obama a one term President, you are incorrect about the timing. The assertion that McConnell made the one term president comment prior to President Obama being inaugurated is a complete myth. See: When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a ?one-term president?? - The Washington Post. And yes, that article was in the Washington Post.

 

If you are referring to something else McConnell said, could you provide a link?

 

I get so frustrated (and a bit angry) when someone attempts to blame the Rs for failing to compromise. How many Rs voted for ObamaCare? I'm quite certain the Rs suggested many proposed changes to the law in the hope President Obama would compromise. The fact that not a single R ended up voting for the final bill (not even the more moderate Rs) indicates to me that the President did little if any compromising himself. Results of Roll Call vote: Roll Call Vote

 

McConnell issued his "one term President" comment after ObamaCare was crammed down McConnell's and the other Rs' throats. Seems to me that the President shouldn't whine about the other side not compromising, after all, he started it. Again, not one R voted for ObamaCare; not even Senator Snowe, a Senator well known for being very centrist and a moderate and being well known as someone willing to compromise.

 

My timing is off. Looks like I got McConnell confused with Rush Limbaugh. Oops.

 

See post #9 for your anger.

 

As is always in politics both sides are reactionary instead of seeking compromise. They are both babies and their actions spawn more babies and more babies and more babies. Instead of getting angry at what people say get angry at how BOTH sides are and have been acting for decades.

Obama bashers love to say he is the worst president ever and has been a failure. Why is it no one ever mentions how Mitch McConnell told everyone that the republicans will block his success every chance they get and that they will not compromise with the democrats at all while Obama is the president?

 

How is this fact glossed over especially when we are 6 years into Obama's failure? How is Obama or any president supposed to succeed when the other party is brazenly saying "we will not compromise with you on anything"? This was said before the first Obama inauguration and every word has proven to be true over the years.

 

Seems kind of fishy to me.

 

Unfortunately, this is the way Washington often works...... Even though I am a registered Republican, I can admit that he never really had much of a chance. The next President will likely face the same problem.

GWB clearly is the worst president in my lifetime. He presided over the destabilization of the Middle East and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Obama has done nothing remotely resembling these misdeeds. And lest people label me a partisan hack, I'd put Carter No. 2 on the "worst list."

 

I am not sure if you are stating that GWB was the president while the Middle East was unstable, or if you are trying to argue that he is the reason that the Middle East is unstable. Could you please clarify?

I love it when Leatherneck posts.

I have seen the word compromise thrown around on this thread. Sounds great...maybe give a little...get a little, everybody gets at least SOME satisfaction. And most of us have probably experienced compromise in our lives, multiple times. Can be a good thing.

 

Here's the problem. Sometimes things just can't be compromised on. Going to use a hot button topic as an example. Abortion. Not looking to debate right or wrong, just using it as an example. Side A says abortion is wrong and shouldn't be done. Side B says abortion is fine and should be anyone's right to choose. Ok, lets compromise. Side B says in a compromise proposal...ok, no abortions after 20 weeks in the womb. Well, how in the world does side A compromise on that, when in totality they view it as wrong?

 

Same could be said of the ACA. If one side views it as just really bad law and shouldn't be done, then how do you compromise on that?

 

It's like a bully holding you down on the playground and going to make you eat a dog turd. He's willing to compromise with you...and in stead of making you eat the whole thing, only makes you eat half of it. Guess what? Not much of a compromise for the kid eating the poop is it?:idunno:

I am not sure if you are stating that GWB was the president while the Middle East was unstable, or if you are trying to argue that he is the reason that the Middle East is unstable. Could you please clarify?

The Iraq war that Bush, Cheney, Libby and the neocons started in '03 upset the balance of power in the Middle East, specifically Iran vis-a-vis Iraq. The aftermath of this war most certainly made the Middle East more unstable. That's a no-brainer. Bush's stated objective (well, one of them) of bringing Western-style democracy to a country like Iraq was and is ludicrous. The two branches of Islam have been warring for centuries and likely will still be cutting throats 100 years down the road.

Conversely when has Obama ever tried to work with the other side?

 

How many pieces of legislation has Harry Reid stopped?

 

The Dems want to paint this as a poor us we've been blocked by McConnell when in fact the Dems have done NOTHING to even try to work with the other side.

 

THIS!!!

 

I remember one of Obama's first meetings with Republicans. He made the statement something to the affect that elections have consequences. Then he says "I won".

 

Really good way to start out with the other side.

Unfortunately, this is the way Washington often works...... Even though I am a registered Republican, I can admit that he never really had much of a chance. The next President will likely face the same problem.

 

I agree. This is how I feel as well and how I see our world operating.

Unfortunately, this is the way Washington often works...... Even though I am a registered Republican, I can admit that he never really had much of a chance. The next President will likely face the same problem.

 

D or R - it won't matter.

 

Gridlock will rule.

D or R - it won't matter.

 

Gridlock will rule.

 

Maybe. Probably. But I'm an optimist. It will take a special skill set to change things and more importantly it will take someone that can appeal to a broad base of Americans on important issues. While we want to blame the politicians, in reality the politicians just reflect the will of the voters. The politicians have to do so if they want to get re-elected and it's a safe bet that every one of them wants to get re-elected.

 

So in order for the grid lock to end, the next President will first have to win over the minds of a majority of Americans on key issues. That is critical. Then he or she will have to have the political courage to permit the opposing party to "get something" on the laws he or she is pushing. I harken back to Reagan. The smartest guy? No. But man could he communicate with and relate to a whole lot of Americans; more importantly, he made a whole lot of Americans relate to him. He used that to push Tip, yet didn't abuse the power, letting Tip and his interests "get something". Reagan understood better than any President of my adult lifetime that if you embarrass your opponent, it just makes that opponent more determined to take you down. Clinton was a pretty close second to Reagan in that regard.

The Iraq war that Bush, Cheney, Libby and the neocons started in '03 upset the balance of power in the Middle East, specifically Iran vis-a-vis Iraq. The aftermath of this war most certainly made the Middle East more unstable. That's a no-brainer. Bush's stated objective (well, one of them) of bringing Western-style democracy to a country like Iraq was and is ludicrous. The two branches of Islam have been warring for centuries and likely will still be cutting throats 100 years down the road.

 

Dang it Twotoplace, I want to argue with you about this, but...unfortunately I can't. You're right. Dang, did I just say Twotoplace was right about something?:facepalm::lol2: Of course a lot of that is hindsight, and I believe much better was hoped for and was THOUGHT attainable, but unfortunately it wasn't and history seems to prove that point as well.

Maybe. Probably. But I'm an optimist. It will take a special skill set to change things and more importantly it will take someone that can appeal to a broad base of Americans on important issues. While we want to blame the politicians, in reality the politicians just reflect the will of the voters. The politicians have to do so if they want to get re-elected and it's a safe bet that every one of them wants to get re-elected.

 

So in order for the grid lock to end, the next President will first have to win over the minds of a majority of Americans on key issues. That is critical. Then he or she will have to have the political courage to permit the opposing party to "get something" on the laws he or she is pushing. I harken back to Reagan. The smartest guy? No. But man could he communicate with and relate to a whole lot of Americans; more importantly, he made a whole lot of Americans relate to him. He used that to push Tip, yet didn't abuse the power, letting Tip and his interests "get something". Reagan understood better than any President of my adult lifetime that if you embarrass your opponent, it just makes that opponent more determined to take you down. Clinton was a pretty close second to Reagan in that regard.

 

Gonna have to disagree with that statement in the strongest possible terms. Politicians reflect the will of their lobbyists and richest campaign donors.

 

Reagan understood better than any President of my adult lifetime that if you embarrass your opponent, it just makes that opponent more determined to take you down. Clinton was a pretty close second to Reagan in that regard.

 

They were the best a getting a coalition and getting things done. They stayed above the fray and stayed 'Presidential'.

 

Neither of the Bush's had the charisma to make it happen as well.

 

Obama has the 'we won' attitude and the 'I have pen' attitude. Completely belligerent. Now that the Clintonistas have left the administration there seems to be no one who can 'govern'.

What metrics do we use to measure one president against another in order to gage "best" or "worst?"

Dang it Twotoplace, I want to argue with you about this, but...unfortunately I can't. You're right. Dang, did I just say Twotoplace was right about something?:facepalm::lol2: Of course a lot of that is hindsight, and I believe much better was hoped for and was THOUGHT attainable, but unfortunately it wasn't and history seems to prove that point as well.

Good to hear that we agree on something. What really stands out about the Iraq war is a profound ignorance by Bush-Cheney and their neocon advisers to grasp the religious-tribal dynamics of the Middle East that have firmly been in place even before Suleyman the Magnificent moved his army against the heretical Persians in the early 16th century.