Saying it and doing it are two very, very different things. Even if President Obama is really trying to get both parties to work together, if he doesn't have the political skills and abilities to make it happen, do we have the right person in the Oval Office?

 

I continue to believe that historians will someday write that President Obama made a great tactical blunder in pushing Obamacare through early in his first term. He ran roughshod over Republican opposition; lost his ability to pull both sides together on other issues; and caused Tea Party extremists to get elected (thus making it even harder to get consensus on issues like deficit reduction). Even if one believes that Obamacare was the right thing to do (and for the record, I don't), it has created an environment that has greatly undermined his ability to get cooperation from the other side of the aisle, and thus was a mistake. Classic case of winning the battle but losing the war.

 

 

I can see how he pushed Obamacare through on his term created grudges from Republicans that are now impossible for him to overcome. Does that make him a poor leader? I guess overall it does but now it seems like because he ran roughshod over Republicans early in his term that we can't come together now? Is that right? Won't this cycle continue on and on as it has been this ruining all politician's leadership skills?

Saying it and doing it are two very, very different things. Even if President Obama is really trying to get both parties to work together, if he doesn't have the political skills and abilities to make it happen, do we have the right person in the Oval Office?

 

I continue to believe that historians will someday write that President Obama made a great tactical blunder in pushing Obamacare through early in his first term. He ran roughshod over Republican opposition; lost his ability to pull both sides together on other issues; and caused Tea Party extremists to get elected (thus making it even harder to get consensus on issues like deficit reduction). Even if one believes that Obamacare was the right thing to do (and for the record, I don't), it has created an environment that has greatly undermined his ability to get cooperation from the other side of the aisle, and thus was a mistake. Classic case of winning the battle but losing the war.

 

 

I can see how he pushed Obamacare through on his term created grudges from Republicans that are now impossible for him to overcome. Does that make him a poor leader? I guess overall it does but now it seems like because he ran roughshod over Republicans early in his term that we can't come together now. Is that right? Won't this cycle continue on and on as it has been thus ruining all politician's leadership skills?

I am very much afraid that this person does not exist in today's political climate.

 

Perhaps but I think it's possible. It takes a strong person who is able to tell his "constituents" they aren't going to get everything they want. Actually President Clinton was extremely talented at doing so.

I can see how he pushed Obamacare through on his term created grudges from Republicans that are now impossible for him to overcome. Does that make him a poor leader? I guess overall it does but now it seems like because he ran roughshod over Republicans early in his term that we can't come together now. Is that right? Won't this cycle continue on and on as it has been thus ruining all politician's leadership skills?

 

To answer your first question: probably because he failed to properly understand the ramifications of his Obamacare push.

 

Call it the doctrine of "not considered ramifications".

 

Hard to say if the cycle will continue during the Obama presidency. It's possible that President Obama can establish a belief with the Republicans in Congress that he is actually the moderate President that he pledged to be on the campaign trail. But since he really got off on the wrong foot with Obamacare, it will take an extreme effort.

This is an ironic post. You will never have insight to my line of thinking. My wife, friends and family don't have insight to my thought process. Are you even certain my thoughts from post 1 are the same at post 68?

 

 

You and I are a lot alike. You just spin and deflect better(you are a lawyer, correct) than I do but I am younger than you and will continue to improve.

 

Explain how it is ironic.

Explain how it is ironic.

 

Because I could direct that post to you word for word.

Because I could direct that post to you word for word.

 

Sorry PP, but there is no way one could read that pledge and equate what it says to saying that African-American youths had it better during slavery than today, without demonstrating severe bias. Taking it a step further, it's insane to try to "assume" that Bachmann supports the jump in logic you used to get to that stance.

 

It's fairly obvious from the pledge as to what it was trying to shed light on. And you've agreed in this thread that it's a topic that should be addressed. Can you argue against the validity of the statistics used? Absolutely, but the point still has quite a bit of merit.

Because I could direct that post to you word for word.

 

I challenge you to find posts of mine that contain the same insults of Democratic leaders that you stated of Bachmann. In fact if you look at all the posts I've made about President Obama, you will find nothing but courtesy from me. I may not agree with his philosophies and policies, but I have never insulted him. If any thing, I've taken some of our more vigorous Republican posters to task for not extending the President the proper amount of respect. So no, you could not direct my post to me word for word.

And you are missing the part where the numbers aren't coming from a time during slavery so the whole statement that more black kids had dual parent homes than in the present day is a false statement from the jump.

And you're missing the word attempt. As stated by UKMustangFan, the point still has quite a bit of merit.

I'm late in this debate but I go back to the problem of the "inference" in the opening statement.

 

Statistics used were not of the era where the statement was made. There are no viable stats on slave families structures (because the govt at the time looked at them as property not people and/or family units). One of the worse practices in the public arena, IMO, is to pronounce conclusions while using facts that have nothing to do with the statement.

 

I would also state that slavery will always be a passionate issue for some whose heritage was deeply effected by the practice.

 

In my opinion it's the same as the candidate who states how efficient the Nazi's ran Germany and to a Jew that is anathema. There might be truth in one arena of the statement but the baggage it carries outweighs the need to state it.

Saying it and doing it are two very, very different things. Even if President Obama is really trying to get both parties to work together, if he doesn't have the political skills and abilities to make it happen, do we have the right person in the Oval Office?

 

I continue to believe that historians will someday write that President Obama made a great tactical blunder in pushing Obamacare through early in his first term. He ran roughshod over Republican opposition; lost his ability to pull both sides together on other issues; and caused Tea Party extremists to get elected (thus making it even harder to get consensus on issues like deficit reduction). Even if one believes that Obamacare was the right thing to do (and for the record, I don't), it has created an environment that has greatly undermined his ability to get cooperation from the other side of the aisle, and thus was a mistake. Classic case of winning the battle but losing the war.

I believe that Obama came into office with the intention of working with both sides of the aisle, but I don't think the other side had any intention of doing so, as evidenced by McConnell's declaration that his job was to make Obama a one-term president.

 

Obama had good intentions with health care reform, but he mishandled the situation. Instead of taking advantage of the bully pulpit of the office, he let Pelosi and Reed run the show, and it got predictably messy. But it was obvious during the process that Obama was going to get no cooperation from the Republicans.

I challenge you to find posts of mine that contain the same insults of Democratic leaders that you stated of Bachmann. In fact if you look at all the posts I've made about President Obama, you will find nothing but courtesy from me. I may not agree with his philosophies and policies, but I have never insulted him. If any thing, I've taken some of our more vigorous Republican posters to task for not extending the President the proper amount of respect. So no, you could not direct my post to me word for word.

 

My fault. Start at the words....'like everyone else on here.....'. The irony set in for me at that point.

Sorry PP, but there is no way one could read that pledge and equate what it says to saying that African-American youths had it better during slavery than today, without demonstrating severe bias. Taking it a step further, it's insane to try to "assume" that Bachmann supports the jump in logic you used to get to that stance.

 

It's fairly obvious from the pledge as to what it was trying to shed light on. And you've agreed in this thread that it's a topic that should be addressed. Can you argue against the validity of the statistics used? Absolutely, but the point still has quite a bit of merit.

 

And you're missing the word attempt. As stated by UKMustangFan, the point still has quite a bit of merit.

 

Leatherneck's questions in post 54 have merit. The fraudulent claim that the two-parent structure for black families was stronger during slavery not only lacks merit but is fundamentally absurd. If they had intended to raise the questions leatherneck did they could have easily said what he did, instead they juked some numbers to invoke slavery in the process of making a political point. That is not merit worthy. It is shameful.

Sorry PP, but there is no way one could read that pledge and equate what it says to saying that African-American youths had it better during slavery than today, without demonstrating severe bias. Taking it a step further, it's insane to try to "assume" that Bachmann supports the jump in logic you used to get to that stance.

 

It's fairly obvious from the pledge as to what it was trying to shed light on. And you've agreed in this thread that it's a topic that should be addressed. Can you argue against the validity of the statistics used? Absolutely, but the point still has quite a bit of merit.

 

 

Again, I saw the headline of the article(which reads Bachmann says black kids were better off during slavery), I read the article and agreed with the article and then posted it on here. Not one time did I say the point doesn't have merit. I spoke on how the article made me feel about Bachmann and others who have taken the pledge. The implications in the article make a lot of sense to me and as I stated it all comes down to perspective and we have different perspectives on this issue.

I'm late in this debate but I go back to the problem of the "inference" in the opening statement.

 

Statistics used were not of the era where the statement was made. There are no viable stats on slave families structures (because the govt at the time looked at them as property not people and/or family units). One of the worse practices in the public arena, IMO, is to pronounce conclusions while using facts that have nothing to do with the statement.

 

I would also state that slavery will always be a passionate issue for some whose heritage was deeply effected by the practice.

 

In my opinion it's the same as the candidate who states how efficient the Nazi's ran Germany and to a Jew that is anathema. There might be truth in one arena of the statement but the baggage it carries outweighs the need to state it.

 

 

Thank you!!!!!