Well, at the end of the process we have a deal and that really is what is most important.

 

On the discussion about the process and the divided leadership ... as ugly as it was, this is when our government does its best work. When one party is in control, our government and our country suffers. If it is all Dems, things are bad. If it is all Repubs, it is even a little worse. When our governemnt has split leadership, their best work happens. The battle back and forth probably has produced a deal that will be the best for our country. I think this was the last piece to this economy making some nice moves forward.

If I can pop my keyboard in to the forum for a minute, I read the posts about the disgust with Congress and wonder: are we being fair? Much scorn and distain has been directed at Congress for failing to compromise for such a long time on the deficit and for the extreme positions taken by some members of both parties. Is that fair?

 

I think this country and the voters have become more and more polarized over the last decade. Yes we still have a large bank of moderate, in the middle, Americans, but if you look at who is getting elected I think they are candidates appealing to the hard core party loyalists. For example, a fair number of very conservative candidates with Tea Party beliefs were recently elected to the House. They ran on a platform of extreme fiscal restraint. They told the voters that's what they believed in and how they would conduct themselves if elected. When they stuck to their guns, should we be upset with them? When the hard core liberals in Congress likewise campaigned on a entitlement, big government platform, were elected and stuck to their guns, should we be upset with them?

 

I know it's fashionable to bash Congress these days, but is it fair? If they are only doing what they told their voting constituents they would do if elected, should they get bashed? I don't think so. We do have a representative form of government in this country and members of Congress are to represent the political beliefs and philosophies of the people in their districts whom elected them. If the people in Ms. Pelosi's district are extremely liberal, I expect her to support extremely liberal philosophies and laws. Likewise, I expect the Tea Party members of Congress to be extremely fiscally conservative.

 

To me, the problem is more caused by this country becoming a country of two dramatically different and almost equal in popularity government philosophies. When such happens, "grid lock" or whatever you want to call it, is going to happen in Congress. There will be no easy, early agreements on tough issues. There will be more and more 11th hour agreements being negotiated by what is left of the middle. Unless you have a popular President able to stir and lead the American voters and Congress on the tough issues, more "grid lock" is to be expected. As I've stated before, President Obama severely and negatively impacted his ability to be the kind of President who could do just that when he pushed health care reform down the throats of Republicans and Americans (weren't something like 69% of Americans opposed to the reform?). He got a major part of his agenda passed, but I think it came at a great, great cost to his ability to strongly advocate a middle position and I think it played a major role in strong conservatives getting elected in 2010. As they say, you reap what you sow. When you have a country so evenly divided on issues, a President must be extremely careful not to push any legislation that is too slanted in either direction, even if he believes in that legislation. Unlike a member of Congress that is elected by a small percentage of America and thus is much more likely to be elected by voters with more extreme political beliefs, the President is elected by the entire country and thus must represent the desires and beliefs of all of America (particularly the moderates in the middle) if he is going to be capable of leading the entire country. I think President Obama has lost that ability. I hope I'm wrong on that however and he can regain the ability to lead. I'm not one that hopes he fails just to see a Republican regain the White House in 12. We have way too many struggles and tough issues to deal with between now and then. We need a strong and capable leader now. If President Obama can regain the ability to do so, I'd be just fine with it.

 

Who knows; I may be all wet about my above stated beliefs but that's how I see what's going on in DC.

 

A lot of what you say I agree with, particularly the second & third paragraphs. Some of our Congressmen, on both sides of the aisle, are making voting decisions based on campaign promises to their constituents. While I wholeheartedly disagree with those on the far left, I do respect the fact that they are being consistent as opposed to the constant waffling we see from most politicians.

 

I also agree with your assessment of Obama & how his Health Care push has hurt him with some other things. Whatever coattails he had following his election to the land's highest office, they slowly began to fade away following that whole issue.

 

What I agree with the most is what you said at the end--that I don't want the President to fail just to get a Republican into office. I am an American much more so than I am a Republican. And as much as I want my party to succeed and thrive, I want America to do that much, much more. Unlike others in my party, I don't believe Barack Obama is an evil man who wakes up every morning thinking to himself, "How can I ruin America today?" I think he's very intelligent, amazingly articulate, and I believe he thinks he is doing what is best for our country. I just very strongly disagree with the path on which he has this country. But I hope & pray he succeeds, because if he does well, then my country is doing well.

I think this was the last piece to this economy making some nice moves forward.

 

I hope you are right, but I have some very serious doubts.

I hope you are right, but I have some very serious doubts.

 

It looks like we're going into or have been in a double dip recession so I too hope that this is a catylist to turning it around. I don't have a lot of faith though.

It depends on your definition. I'd say the pols are playing to who they think will vote them in regardless if it's the right thing for the country.

 

If I can pop my keyboard in to the forum for a minute, I read the posts about the disgust with Congress and wonder: are we being fair? Much scorn and distain has been directed at Congress for failing to compromise for such a long time on the deficit and for the extreme positions taken by some members of both parties. Is that fair?

 

I think this country and the voters have become more and more polarized over the last decade. Yes we still have a large bank of moderate, in the middle, Americans, but if you look at who is getting elected I think they are candidates appealing to the hard core party loyalists. For example, a fair number of very conservative candidates with Tea Party beliefs were recently elected to the House. They ran on a platform of extreme fiscal restraint. They told the voters that's what they believed in and how they would conduct themselves if elected. When they stuck to their guns, should we be upset with them? When the hard core liberals in Congress likewise campaigned on a entitlement, big government platform, were elected and stuck to their guns, should we be upset with them?

 

.

 

I'm with you, LN. Too often people point the fingers at someone else when it should be pointed back at them.

I still feel that extremist (and self-serving) legislators are the problem with out current situation. However, Leatherneck makes a good point in saying, the people who put these extremists in office must share the blame.

 

Perhaps we need to consider why there is such polarization. Does it give rise to extremist polititians, or could it be the polititians propagating extremist views? And Leatherneck is also right on target with his comments about the weakness of President Obama and its effect on the ability of our government to function -- especially in a crisis situation.

I still feel that extremist (and self-serving) legislators are the problem with out current situation. However, Leatherneck makes a good point in saying, the people who put these extremists in office must share the blame.

 

Perhaps we need to consider why there is such polarization. Does it give rise to extremist polititians, or could it be the polititians propagating extremist views? And Leatherneck is also right on target with his comments about the weakness of President Obama and its effect on the ability of our government to function -- especially in a crisis situation.

 

I think we're ripe for a legitimate third party. Maybe not in 2012, but I believe within the next decade, a third party will rise up and will, at least for a while, contend with the D's & R's.

I think we're ripe for a legitimate third party. Maybe not in 2012, but I believe within the next decade, a third party will rise up and will, at least for a while, contend with the D's & R's.

 

I think we virtually have a third party now in the Tea Partiers. It will take some major problems in the country - depression like - for any third party to gain enough clout to take some control in Washington.

In the end, neither the TPers or the Progressives are going to be happy with this deal.

In the end, neither the TPers or the Progressives are going to be happy with this deal.

 

And that is called compromise.

I think we virtually have a third party now in the Tea Partiers. It will take some major problems in the country - depression like - for any third party to gain enough clout to take some control in Washington.

 

I think TPers might lay the foundation for a new party, but their presentation has sometimes been so off-the-wall that I question whether they can be legitimate.

 

On your "compromise" comment, I would offer that this isn't always what should be desired. I'm not suggesting that compromise is bad in this instance, nor am I suggesting that this is what you're putting forth. But compromise, to me, often times can worsen a situation rather than make it better.

In the end, neither the TPers or the Progressives are going to be happy with this deal.

Compromise VOR , That is why it is good for the country .

To paraphrase something I frequently heard over the past few days - if neither side was crazy about the result, that means it was probably a good compromise.

To paraphrase something I frequently heard over the past few days - if neither side was crazy about the result, that means it was probably a good compromise.

 

I got emails from the 3 horsemen yesterday, saying exactly that.

 

(The three horsemen = Senators Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio, and Congressman Gus Bilirakis.)

Compromise is for married couples. We didn't need compromise, we needed our leaders to make the tough choices and balance the budget with deep cuts. This bill was a waste of everyones time.