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 days of Reagan-O'Neill or Ike-LBJ collegiality are distant memories. "Compromise" today is a dirty word, especially with the Republicans. If a Republican in Congress doesn't vote the party line, then one can expect a primary opponent heavily supported by the NRA or Tea Party. I don't think that the powers of persuasion of the president have much effect on anything Congress does or doesn't do today.

To be historically correct both parties led us into the Middle east wars , Bush led , and that was wrong , but he had the support of the majority of the democrats in house and congress . Please dont make me repost comments from Hillary and others . been there done that .

The days of Reagan-O'Neill or Ike-LBJ collegiality are distant memories. "Compromise" today is a dirty word, especially with the Republicans. If a Republican in Congress doesn't vote the party line, then one can expect a primary opponent heavily supported by the NRA or Tea Party. I don't think that the powers of persuasion of the president have much effect on anything Congress does or doesn't do today.

 

 

And what exactly have the Dems been willing to compromise on?

 

How many Dems broke party line on Obamacare? How many have broken party line to get Reid to allow ANYTHING to come to the floor of the Senate.

The days of Reagan-O'Neill or Ike-LBJ collegiality are distant memories. "Compromise" today is a dirty word, especially with the Republicans. If a Republican in Congress doesn't vote the party line, then one can expect a primary opponent heavily supported by the NRA or Tea Party. I don't think that the powers of persuasion of the president have much effect on anything Congress does or doesn't do today.

 

It is a dirty word these days, but that doesn't mean it has to remain that way. We'll disagree on the impact of leadership and the power of persuasion. And your point about the Tea Party/NRA is correct. Then again, if Representative Pelosi came out against Gay rights or Gay Marriage, you could expect a primary opponent supported by the LGBT organizations.

To be historically correct both parties led us into the Middle east wars , Bush led , and that was wrong , but he had the support of the majority of the democrats in house and congress . Please dont make me repost comments from Hillary and others . been there done that .

The argument that "both sides are to blame" is the most hackneyed phrase on these boards. This one is squarely on Bush-Cheney-Libby and their now discredited neocon pals. Perhaps you should review the "facts" presented to Congress and ask whether the info was indeed accurate.

To be historically correct both parties led us into the Middle east wars , Bush led , and that was wrong , but he had the support of the majority of the democrats in house and congress . Please dont make me repost comments from Hillary and others . been there done that .

 

It is not clear in my mind it was a mistake. However, I do think it would have been different if the UN had actually functioned rather than being a collection of self-interested parties. Avoiding war is preferable, but avoiding it at all cost while a brutal sectist dictator murders hundreds of thousands of people doesn't sound too noble to me.

It is a dirty word these days, but that doesn't mean it has to remain that way. We'll disagree on the impact of leadership and the power of persuasion. And your point about the Tea Party/NRA is correct. Then again, if Representative Pelosi came out against Gay rights or Gay Marriage, you could expect a primary opponent supported by the LGBT organizations.

Re: your hypothetical involving Pelosi: I cannot think of any examples of a Democratic member of Congress getting a well-funded primary opponent because he or she was too compromising. Different story on the other side of the aisle, though.

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 literally Laughed Out Loud at the bolded. Didn't realize Bush was a time traveler.

The argument that "both sides are to blame" is the most hackneyed phrase on these boards. This one is squarely on Bush-Cheney-Libby and their now discredited neocon pals. Perhaps you should review the "facts" presented to Congress and ask whether the info was indeed accurate.

 

Sounds like it was to me.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

 

From 2004 to 2011, American and Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and at times were wounded by, chemical weapons that were hidden or abandoned years earlier.

Sounds like it was to me.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

 

From 2004 to 2011, American and Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and at times were wounded by, chemical weapons that were hidden or abandoned years earlier.

Visit the thread "Iraqi WMD's Revisited." Interesting, nuanced discussion on this topic going on.

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.

 

I think the hope always was that...surely these people will choose democracy if given the chance, who in their right mind wouldn't? Well, obviously, for whatever reason, there are enough people in that region of the world that won't allow it to work. There's always the thought that, well maybe this time it will work. And it's not like Saddam was some golden boy all star...he was hated by his own people and committed atrocities beyond belief. But while he was there, he was a somewhat "stabilizing" force. Stabilizing having a very broad definition in this case.

Re: your hypothetical involving Pelosi: I cannot think of any examples of a Democratic member of Congress getting a well-funded primary opponent because he or she was too compromising. Different story on the other side of the aisle, though.

 

That's because Democrats never compromise! J/K.

 

On point, unions have quite often leaned rather heavily on Dems that weren't toeing the union line to keep them from compromising.

 

Not on the federal level, but read: In states' latest battle with organized labor, Illinois public unions target Democratic lawmakers | Fox News and Public unions target Democrat in Wisconsin recall - The Washington Post and Post-Ohio, Unions Set Their Sights on...Democrat Andrew Cuomo? | Mother Jones for example.

 

On the federal level: Unions target Democratic Senators Warner, McCaskill on fiscal cliff and Democrat ?no? votes on healthcare legislation anger labor unions | TheHill for example.

 

If I had more time to search back when the Rs controlled the WH and at least either the House or Senate, I have a feeling I'd fine plenty of articles indicating unions targeting D members of Congress that had voted in favor of what the unions considered anti union legislation.

I will always prefer the failure of politicians who seek to expand our welfare state to the detriment of the nation's "general welfare" to their political success. Better that a politician fail than the nation.

I will always prefer the failure of politicians who seek to expand our welfare state to the detriment of the nation's "general welfare" to their political success. Better that a politician fail than the nation.

 

Beautifully succinct.... Well said:thumb:

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 100% sure that if you were posting back in 1976 you would be solidly behind Jimmy C.