May 9, 201016 yr I think it was, at one time and as recently as a few years ago. Frankly, I think the Republican Party heirarchy has made it a basic part of its strategy to make sure there is none. Wasn't it the DNC that sent out a political strategy during W's years on how for a Democrat to stand against Bush and make it a political win for them? It wasn't about issues but rather to always stand against the Republican view and what to pick out of it that they could go with the voters with and make the issue look bad. No option to be cooperative but rather a plan/format to always stand against the Republican position. If I remember right, a lot of the Contract to America required bipartisan support since it was a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. Seems the only time things didn't get passed were in a Republican Presidency and a Democrat Congress of 2006 and 2008. Admittingly, the Republican Congress and President lost their mind and spent out of their heads. And then now, the Democrat Congress and President has taken the position that they are not going to let the Republicans outspend them so they are spending, I think it was double, what when on from 2000 to 2006. Neither party in full control has shown they have the ability to reign in themselves and do things that are good for this country. They just spend for their interest groups to get more votes in the next election.
May 9, 201016 yr Wasn't it the DNC that sent out a political strategy during W's years on how for a Democrat to stand against Bush and make it a political win for them? It wasn't about issues but rather to always stand against the Republican view and what to pick out of it that they could go with the voters with and make the issue look bad. No option to be cooperative but rather a plan/format to always stand against the Republican position. Nevertheless, some sweeping legislation was passed during Bush's presidency ... No Child Left Behind was clearly a bipartisan effort, as were bills like McCain-Feingold, as I recall. And the McCain-led "Gang of 14" led to some bipartisan work on judicial appointments. Can you name anything in this Congress that has had bipartisan support?
May 9, 201016 yr Wasn't it the DNC that sent out a political strategy during W's years on how for a Democrat to stand against Bush and make it a political win for them? It wasn't about issues but rather to always stand against the Republican view and what to pick out of it that they could go with the voters with and make the issue look bad. No option to be cooperative but rather a plan/format to always stand against the Republican position. If I remember right, a lot of the Contract to America required bipartisan support since it was a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. Seems the only time things didn't get passed were in a Republican Presidency and a Democrat Congress of 2006 and 2008. Admittingly, the Republican Congress and President lost their mind and spent out of their heads. And then now, the Democrat Congress and President has taken the position that they are not going to let the Republicans outspend them so they are spending, I think it was double, what when on from 2000 to 2006. Neither party in full control has shown they have the ability to reign in themselves and do things that are good for this country. They just spend for their interest groups to get more votes in the next election. I don't remember that at all. The Contract for America was strictly a GOP commitment to take both houses of Congress and had nothing to do with the Dems in my memory. It worked well in the midterms of '94 but Clinton turned the tables within 2 years, made them look like the bad guys and built enough chips for re-election in '96. From '94 to '06 the GOP had the reins in both houses. Some bi-partisan occurred and some did not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
May 9, 201016 yr I don't remember that at all. The Contract for America was strictly a GOP commitment to take both houses of Congress and had nothing to do with the Dems in my memory. It worked well in the midterms of '94 but Clinton turned the tables within 2 years, made them look like the bad guys and built enough chips for re-election in '96. From '94 to '06 the GOP had the reins in both houses. Some bi-partisan occurred and some did not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America Any Congressional work passed by the Republicans required a Democrat President's signature, correct?
May 10, 201016 yr I think it was, at one time and as recently as a few years ago. Frankly, I think the Republican Party hierarchy has made it a basic part of its strategy to make sure there is none. Your definition of a few years and mine must be different. You're sadly mistaken if you think the Democrats want true bi-partisan cooperation anymore than the Republicans. Both sides just want a win. Anyone remember when the Republicans were labeling the Democrats as "the party of no"? The more things change the more they remain the same.
May 10, 201016 yr Any Congressional work passed by the Republicans required a Democrat President's signature, correct? Did you read the article? Not much other than "Noble ideas" was passed. Very little of the "contract" was intacted, kept in place (i.e. ruled unconstitutional), or really did much that changed America. In fact you might note this quote at the end of the article: A November 13, 2000 article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, "... the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." Tell me how it was bi-partisan again and how effective it was?
May 10, 201016 yr What is it about this statement ... Or those of his opponents ... of course, sometimes the irrational nature of some of his critics seems to have to do with a little more than simply his policies and political views. ... that paints all of Obama's critics as racist? The fact that it followed this.... I've never heard them used interchangeably, as if they're one and the same. Are their commentators calling elements of the Tea Party movement racists? Sure. Is the assessment correct? Probably.
May 10, 201016 yr The fact that it followed this....How is the use of the word "elements" painting all with the same broad brush?
May 10, 201016 yr I once listened to Sean Hannity tell me that if I was a liberal, I wanted our troops to die in Iraq and that I wanted America "to lose the war in Iraq" ... it is ridiculous sometimes, the ideas that get assigned to all liberals. I'd certainly be more conservative than liberal, and I can hardly watch Hannity myself. It's the same thing every night. Bugatti nailed it. He has a few things he repeats over and over and over and over... Sometimes the Great American Panel has some decent thoughts if Hannity will let them talk. That's what I hate about a lot of these TV guys. They'd rather hear themselves talk. I guess they have to "control the message" like they're running a campaign. But, often they'll get a person on that I'd like to hear out and they end up just shouting them down. They put words in their mouth, shout them down, and undoubtedly, many viewers leave with the belief that whatever Hannity told them is what the guest thought, rather than actually try to listen to them. One note about Glenn Beck...he's doing a thing called Founder's Friday or Founding Fathers Friday or something. Every Friday his show is dedicated to talking about one of the founding fathers. It's pretty interesting. I think most people, if they're interested in those men, would find something to like there. Obviously, he gets a few shots in, but overall, I enjoy it. So far he's done Sam Adams and George Washington.
May 10, 201016 yr Same here. "Let not your heart be troubled." "Ronald Reagan." "Left wing radical." "You do not believe in freedom." Repeat over and over. I will admit Hannity is somewhat funny sometimes (put aside the politics). Saint Reagan?:lol: There are two phrases I hate the most from him... 1. Let not your heart be troubled 2. The Chosen One, the Anointed One, etc. Any of those digs he takes comparing people's love for Obama to the Messiah makes me cringe.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.