My email to Mitch McConnell

[True blue (and gold)]

In fairness though, don't you think that's how just about everyone on both sides in Washington feels about a president not from their party? I think he's just expressing what no one else will say.

 

He made no bones about this being his number one goal. If that is his priority, he doesn't need to pretend to be a public servant.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

In fairness though, don't you think that's how just about everyone on both sides in Washington feels about a president not from their party? I think he's just expressing what no one else will say.

 

You're right, and I don't doubt that most all partisan politicians would prefer to get a president from another party out of the Whitehouse as soon as possible. Still, I think Mitch makes uprooting the democrats too much of a "platform", like TB&G mentioned. A true politician needs to understand that he represents people from all parties, and with that in mind, he needs to do what he can to represent all of those people. Gunning for the president just to get your own party into the Oval Office isn't necessarily the best way to do that.

[75center]

He made no bones about this being his number one goal. If that is his priority, he doesn't need to pretend to be a public servant.

 

I ask again, how many politicians in Washington do you believe don't think exactly the same way? I think it was a stupid thing to say but you could argue that he's showing courage in saying what everyone else is and has been afraid to say.

[True blue (and gold)]

I ask again, how many politicians in Washington do you believe don't think exactly the same way? I think it was a stupid thing to say but you could argue that he's showing courage in saying what everyone else is and has been afraid to say.

 

Courage? Really? I would have to strongly disagree.

 

There may be many whose primary goal is the ousting of a president. I don't know what the percentage is that feel that way. Probably some are more worried about their next re-election. Regardless, courageous would be pretty far down on my list of adjectives to describe his words.

[75center]

Courage? Really? I would have to strongly disagree.

 

There may be many whose primary goal is the ousting of a president. I don't know what the percentage is that feel that way. Probably some are more worried about their next re-election. Regardless, courageous would be pretty far down on my list of adjectives to describe his words.

 

But don't we always say we want politicians to tell us the truth? If he's the only one willing to stand alone and tell us how he feels in the face of criticism, wouldn't that be courageous?

 

As to the percentage who feel the same way I personally think it is overwhelming. Sad as that is.

[cammando]

Obama needs to go for the country to progress... Mitch knows it and so does the majority of the American public.. Getting rid of Obama will be good for BOTH parties..

[Voice of Reason]

But don't we always say we want politicians to tell us the truth? If he's the only one willing to stand alone and tell us how he feels in the face of criticism, wouldn't that be courageous?

 

As to the percentage who feel the same way I personally think it is overwhelming. Sad as that is.

 

McConnell is a politician. He is not a statesman. Unfortunately, they are all politicians today. I almost hate to say it, but Ted Kennedy is the closest Senator to being a stateman that I can recall in recent years. He was a liberal but he could reach across the aisle and get business done when it was good for the country.

[True blue (and gold)]

But don't we always say we want politicians to tell us the truth? If he's the only one willing to stand alone and tell us how he feels in the face of criticism, wouldn't that be courageous?

 

As to the percentage who feel the same way I personally think it is overwhelming. Sad as that is.

 

Nope. Courageous doesn't begin to describe McConnell.

 

the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.

 

How does that definition apply to McConnell?

 

Brazen, brash, audacious, unabashed, impudent, arrogant all seem a better fit for his comment.

[75center]

Nope. Courageous doesn't begin to describe McConnell.

 

 

 

How does that definition apply to McConnell?

 

Brazen, brash, audacious, unabashed, impudent, arrogant all seem a better fit for his comment.

 

"to face difficulty without fear"

 

I'm just saying the argument could be made that he is courageous for stating how he feels in the face of a wave of derision and backlash from both opponents and supporters. We ask for honesty in our politicians. Do we want it only when we agree with them or like them? Make no mistake, I think he was stupid for making the statement and I strongly disagree with that being his main goal.

[75center]

McConnell is a politician. He is not a statesman. Unfortunately, they are all politicians today. I almost hate to say it, but Ted Kennedy is the closest Senator to being a stateman that I can recall in recent years. He was a liberal but he could reach across the aisle and get business done when it was good for the country.

 

Can't see Kennedy as I think he was as much of a backstabber as anyone. I'll have to think for a while on who I can remember that the definition would fit. Could take some time.

[Jim Schue]

"to face difficulty without fear"

 

I'm just saying the argument could be made that he is courageous for stating how he feels in the face of a wave of derision and backlash from both opponents and supporters. We ask for honesty in our politicians. Do we want it only when we agree with them or like them? Make no mistake, I think he was stupid for making the statement and I strongly disagree with that being his main goal.

 

"Derision and backlash?" What derision and backlash exactly was McConnell facing on a night when the GOP, for whom he is the Senate leader and chief fundraiser, stood victorious?

 

I don't think of it as being "courageous" while making a smug, arrogant statement guaranteeing the partisan politics that has paralyzed our government will continue indefinitely. I call it "taking the easy way out."

[True blue (and gold)]

"Derision and backlash?" What derision and backlash exactly was McConnell facing on a night when the GOP, for whom he is the Senate leader and chief fundraiser, stood victorious?

 

I don't think of it as being "courageous" while making a smug, arrogant statement guaranteeing the partisan politics that has paralyzed our government will continue indefinitely. I call it "taking the easy way out."

 

:thumb:

 

No way that McConnell was worried about any difficulty when he said what he did. What's he afraid of? Not getting re-elected? No, courage doesn't apply here.

[75center]

"Derision and backlash?" What derision and backlash exactly was McConnell facing on a night when the GOP, for whom he is the Senate leader and chief fundraiser, stood victorious?

 

I don't think of it as being "courageous" while making a smug, arrogant statement guaranteeing the partisan politics that has paralyzed our government will continue indefinitely. I call it "taking the easy way out."

 

Riiiiiight, he hasn't caught any grief, has he?

 

You look at it through your bias against him, I'm just saying others who support him could see him as displaying courage.

 

I'll ask once again, do you want politicians to tell the truth only when it's what you want to hear? Again, while stupid at least he's telling us where he stands, not that it's not hard to figure out anyway.

[75center]

:thumb:

 

No way that McConnell was worried about any difficulty when he said what he did. What's he afraid of? Not getting re-elected? No, courage doesn't apply here.

 

And you know this how?

 

There is often a fine line between courage and stupidity and depending on how the person is viewed people could argue either way.

[coldweatherfan]

Working together to lead is fine, but IMO, "compromise" is the root cause of much of this country's current ills. When you hear the word "compromise" in national politics, too often over the last 40 years it has meant conservatives leaving their principles to back increases in the size of the federal gov't - recent examples include No Child Left Behind & prescription drug coverage. When conservatives compromise, federal bureaucracies are born that we can never get rid of. When liberals compromise, we're temporarily allowed to keep a little more of the money that was ours to begin with.

 

Now is not the time for compromise. Now is the time for bold action to show the electorate that conservatives are about getting the gov't off the average Joe's back, about allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, about applying some common sense to current environmental issues, and about wearing the shoes within the international community that so many Americans before us have died to provide us with.

 

And if after two years the electorate decides they don't like the direction conservatives have taken the country, then fine, bring back the Democrats for more big gov't. At least we will have made some strides in the right direction.

 

With you 100%.